Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis.
For analysis under SME Step 1. the claim herein is directed to an apparatus, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes). The claim generating a summary of the event by machine learning models in response to a first operation from a user terminal of a user, wherein the summary is generated to digest a description of the event for a livestreamer of the event to easily understand and catch key points of the event; wherein the summary is generated according to information of the events, the user and the other users related to the user, wherein the description comprises at least one of period, goal, gift to be collected, reward, and rules about the event; wherein the event comprises multiple rounds, and the summary is generated only for a current round of the event. The claim is directed to a physical circuit, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
For analysis under SME Step 2A, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims are drawn to generating a summary of the event. Additionally, even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Because the claim elements are the same as, or similar/analogous to, an abstract idea previously identified by a controlling court, the claims herein are also considered to be directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims also appear to be activities that can be performed in the human mind ... or by a human using a pen and paper’ insomuch that people mentally perform age assessments ..., mathematic calculations ..., and updates of inaccurate information.... add that the above activities fall within all three groupings of abstract ideas enumerated.
For analysis under SME Step 2A, Prong 2. The claim does not add significantly more such that the claim indicates a practical solution. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element outputting the estimated vehicle occupant demographics. Outputting are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding analysis under SME Step 2B. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A KURIEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5694. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE A KURIEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2421
/NATHAN J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421