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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Amended claim 1 specifies that the displacement data is received in response to the actuation piston, which moves linearly, being disengaged. Specifically, the displacement data defines the positions of the electric motor based on the air gap interval between magnets in the EMB system. Therefore, the displacement data is associated with the actuation piston of the EMB system such that the elements are further tied to the structure of the EMB system. Using the claimed displacement data negates the need for a force sensor, thereby reducing the cost and complexity of the EMB system. Accordingly, the constraints under which the displacement data is received, in a specific state, enables the clamping force to be estimated. Accordingly, the claimed configuration defines concrete technical features that depend on the technical capabilities of the EMB system to reduce cost and complexity.
…
Here, at page 4, lines 12-15, the Office asserts that "claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea." Further, the Office asserts that:
As such, a person can determine mathematical relationships based on gathered data to estimate a clamping force. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being executed by a processor does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
However, this characterization does not consider the claimed limitations. Rather, the Examiner has taken a broad-brush approach that states that the claims merely recite mathematical relationships for estimating clamping force and as such can be performed in the human mind. However, the claims recite specific parameters for modeling the clamping force estimation. For example, the displacement data is received in response to disengaging an actuation piston moving linearly. A displacement-torque curve is generated based on displacement data and motor torque data of the electric motor of the EMB system for a braking episode having a switchover time. A high torque value and a low torque value are calculated at the switchover time from the displacement- torque curve. A friction coefficient is calculated based on the high torque value and the low torque value. A non-linear coefficient from the displacement-torque curve is calculated to estimate a clamping force for a constant speed based on the friction coefficient and the non-linear coefficient. These are not processes that can be practically performed by a human for the switchover times, nor are these processes for organizing human activity.
The courts do distinguish between claims that could not practically be performed in the human mind. CyberSource distinguished the incidental use of a computer from those inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 at 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)), as directed to inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind"). See Rev. Guid., 52, n. 14. Here, the clamping force is estimated based on a friction coefficient and non-linear coefficient that are tailored to the efficiency of the hardware of the EMB system. Accordingly, the clamping force estimation estimates clamping force in real-time that is tailored to the individual components of the EMB system without adding additional components, such as a force sensor (Specification [0014]). A human is not capable of this type of modeling in real-time. Furthermore, claim 1 is not directed to organizing human activity. For example, claim 1 is not directed to economic practices or commercial or legal interactions. Instead, claim 1 is directed to a technical solution.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed operation steps comprise a series of mental processes in the form of determinations and calculations: a human can generate a displacement-torque curve based on received displacement data and motor torque data for a braking episode having a switchover time, determine high and low torque values for the displacement-torque curve, calculate a friction coefficient based on the high and low torque values, determine a non-linear coefficient from the displacement-torque curve, and estimate a clamping force for a constant speed based on the calculated coefficients.
Examiner notes that the claim does not preclude all of these calculations from happening later, i.e. based on previously gathered data. That is, there are no limitations in the claim that prevent these calculations from happening at human speeds.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Applicant continues: “Additionally, the Examiner has dissected the claim to assert multiple abstract ideas. While an Examiner may identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record, "the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea for Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B (if necessary) rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually" (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B.). Here, the Examiner has characterized the claims as "a person can determine mathematical relationships based on gathered data to estimate a clamping force." However, amended claim 1 does not specifically recite a mathematical formula, calculation, or relationship. Instead, the claims recite a specific method for estimating the clamping force. While there may be other methods to estimate the clamping force, amended claim 1 recites a specific way to do so. Thus, the claimed configuration defines concrete technical features. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a non-abstract and technical solution that is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant points out, it is preferred for eligibility rejections to be grouped under a single abstract idea, which Examiner has done by interpreting the claim as a mental process. Examiner previously referred to the possibility of a mathematical calculation-type abstract idea interpretation for supporting compact prosecution. However, the examiner notes that the claimed limitations identified (as shown below in the rejection under 35 USC 101), taken as a whole can be categorized as EITHER a mental process OR a mathematical concept, and does not rely on the combination of the two groupings together.
Applicant continues: “Under the second prong of Alice, the remaining elements are analyzed to determine if the claim integrates those elements identified under the first prong into a "practical application." See MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c),(e)-(h). Claim 1 is directed to a practical application by providing an improvement to estimating clamping force without a force sensor thereby reducing the complexity and cost of the EMB system. In particular, a problem of conventional EMB systems is described in paragraphs [0011] and [0013] of the specification:
In the EMB system, a force sensor capable of measuring the clamping force is used to control the clamping. Because the brake force of the driver is not directly used as the braking force but is braked by the clamping force of the electric motor, the EMB system utilizes a force sensor to determine the clamping force corresponding to the desired braking force. The force sensor is generally mounted in a caliper with a spindle (screw / nut) and is configured to be a ring type because the spindle must penetrate when sensing the clamping force. However, the addition of the force sensor, increases cost and complexity of the EMB system.
…
Because there are part-to-part variations and run-to-run variations in clamping force, it is difficult to decouple motor torque hysteresis from displacement hysteresis. This is further complicated by noisy motor torque signals.
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1 generates a displacement-torque curve based on displacement data and motor torque data of the EMB system for a braking episode having a switchover time without the use of a force sensor. A high torque value and a low torque value are determined at the switchover time from the displacement-torque curve because the displacement hysteresis goes to zero at the switchover time. Thus, the systems and methods described herein are able to isolate the motor torque hysteresis thereby improving EMB technology. Accordingly, the claimed features of amended claim 1 are integrated into a practical application because amended claim 1 recites a specific way of estimating clamping force.
Claim 1 cannot be generically characterized and then rejected because the characterization is deemed patent ineligible. As the claims do set forth a specific means and do improve technology, they are directed to patent ineligible subject matter and the claims are therefore patent eligible under §101. Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), amended claim 1 is patent eligible because the features of claim 1 are integrated into a practical application. Again, the claims recite an improvement in the technological field of the electromechanical braking and should be deemed patent eligible for providing a practical application under the second prong. Thus, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception and is patent eligible.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere recitation of a generic computer or processor to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application; instead, it merely applies the abstract idea. Likewise, receiving data, or using a sensor in a generic manner, amounts to extra-solution activity that does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and they are only partially persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The Office asserts that FIG. 7 of Li teaches wherein the displacement data includes positions of the electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system (Office Action, page 12, lines 3-7). However, FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an observation of clamping force as a function of "motor angle excl.: air gap rev" (emphasis added) (Li, pg. 8657, first column, first full paragraph). This does not imply that motor angle is measured with regard to air gap. Instead, in Li, motor angle is measured excluding air gap.
This is further evidenced by the fact that Li explicitly teaches away from measuring air gap. At page 8654, first column, first full paragraph, Li states that:
Another practical problem is contact detection and gap management. An air gap must be maintained between the brake pad and disk to avoid damage caused by unwanted contact. Furthermore, the air gap distance must be kept constant for the best control performance despite the wear of the brake pad. Several algorithms have been developed for this problem. For example, the gradient of motor torque is used in [14] to detect the contact point. However, the accuracy of contact detection will be affected by measurement noise.
Because measurement of air gap distance suffers from noise, Li proposes a gap distance estimator that does not rely on detection (Li, pg. 8654, first column, second full paragraph). Therefore, not only does Li specifically exclude air gap measurements, Li teaches that air gap measurements are susceptible to noise and are therefore inaccurate. Instead, Li discloses modeling an unknown clamping force by scaling and rotating a reference curve that excludes air gap. In particular, a reference curve and a arbitrary trajectory of clamping force are shown (Li, pg. 8657, first column, first full paragraph). In Li, motor angle ramp inputs with different rates are performed to achieve different clamping force profiles (Li, pg. 8657, second column, fourth paragraph). Then the clamping force measurements are compared with the output of the estimation to validate its performance (Id.). Nothing in Li teaches or suggests that the displacement data includes positions of an electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system, as recited in amended claim 1. Instead, Li actually teaches away from using positions of the electric motor based on an air gap interval.
. . . . Li is consistently concerned with avoiding the use of air gap data, which Li explicitly states is noisy. In fact, Li has criticized and discouraged the use of displacement data including positions of an electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system, as recited in claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, Examiner’s best guess is that the “air gap” claimed by Applicant refers to an air gap associated with a Hall effect sensor (and not the air gap between brake pads and disc), because the specification nowhere describes “magnets” being used in the system (other than the exact same recitation as used in the claim language). Applicant describes an eletromechanical brake system (not electromagnetic) that uses a motor to turn a spindle and produce linear translation of the brake pads 206, and nowhere does actuation involve magnets (see Applicant’s published specification, US2025/0178581, at [0002], [0018]-[0019], and Figure 2). That translation is measured by a travel sensor 228, such as a Hall sensor, arranged adjacent to a signal transmitter 228 with an air gap between (id. at [0018]). Then “the displacement data includes positions of the electric motor 218 based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system” (id. at [0019] (emphasis added)). As a Hall effect sensor uses magnetic fields to measure displacement here, Examiner could leap to the assumption that the claimed “displacement data [that] includes positions of an electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system” refers to an air gap associated with a Hall effect sensor. Alternatively, “magnets of the EMB system” could refer to magnets in a DC motor—however, Examiner cannot tell for sure as the specific magnets being referenced are not described in the specification. There are no “magnets” associated with the air gap between the brake pads and disc.
However, given that there are no magnets related to an air gap between the brake pads and disc, Li makes much more sense. Li converts rotation of the ball screw and motor to translation of the ball screw nut, actuating the brake pads; Li converts between this translation and rotation in his models to determine the clamping force (see Li at 8655, or Figure 2b). Thus, Li measures rotation/translation to calculate force (see, e.g., Figs 5-7).
Li excludes the air gap between the brake pad and disc by accounting for the dead zone using an air gap management system (see Li at 8656 and Fig. 5). Li then excludes the air gap or dead zone by only looking at the part of rotation relevant to the torque calculation, i.e. from the contact point of brake pad and disc (Li at 8657, first column, first full paragraph, and at 8659). Examiner notes that Applicant’s figures similarly include a gap between the brake pads and disc (Fig. 2), and the displacement measurements between 0 and 0.1mm appear to correlate to zero or near-zero torque in Figure 4, consistent with an air gap there.
However, Examiner concedes that Li does not explicitly teach detecting displacement based on a gap associated with a magnet. As such, because Examiner cannot reasonably understand the independent claim without making assumptions about “magnets”, the prior art rejection is withdrawn until the “magnets” are clarified. (See instead the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection below, along with the 112(b) rejection and drawing objection.)
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “magnets of the EMB system” as claimed in the independent claim (and described in paragraph [0019] of the specification) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite “wherein displacement data includes positions of an electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system” (e.g. claim 1, lines 6-7) (emphasis added). This mirrors the language of paragraph [0019] of Applicant’s published specification, and no additional details are provided there. The specification does not elsewhere describe “magnets”, and the only other reference to an “air gap” in the specification is in relation to the travel sensor 228, which can be a Hall sensor—which does not use magnets (paragraph [0018]). Examiner cannot find supporting description in the specification or drawings that describes “magnets of the EMB system” or an “air gap interval” associated with them such that a person skilled in the art could make or use the invention.
Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art could make or use the invention.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected based at least on the dependence from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite “wherein displacement data includes positions of an electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system” (e.g. claim 1, lines 6-7) (emphasis added). The limitation “magnets of the EMB system” is indefinite because Examiner cannot with any confidence understand what “magnets of the EMB system” refers to, whether a magnetic field of a Hall effect sensor (which is not the same as a magnet), or magnets associated with a DC motor, or magnetic brake actuators of an electromagnetic braking system (which Applicant does not disclose), or any other instance of plural “magnets”.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected based at least on the dependence from rejected claims.
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 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having machine executable instructions for clamping force estimation of an electromechanical brake (EMB) system causing a processor core to execute operations, the operations comprising:
receiving displacement data in response to disengaging an actuation piston moving linearly, wherein the displacement data includes positions of an electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system;
generating a displacement-torque curve based on the displacement data and motor torque data of the electric motor of the EMB system for a braking episode having a switchover time;
determining a high torque value and a low torque value at the switchover time from the displacement-torque curve;
calculating a friction coefficient based on the high torque value and the low torque value;
determining a non-linear coefficient from the displacement-torque curve;
and estimating a clamping force for a constant speed based on the friction coefficient and the non-linear coefficient.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea.1 It merely consists of generating a displacement-torque curve, determining high and low torque values, calculating friction coefficients, determining a non-linear coefficient, and estimating a clamping force. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person can determine mathematical relationships based on gathered data to estimate a clamping force. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being executed by a processor does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
Alternatively, the above highlighted limitations are a mathematical concept, and therefore, an abstract idea. The highlighted claim limitations merely consist of generating a displacement-torque curve allowing for the determination of a high torque value and a low torque value, calculating a friction coefficient, determining a non-linear coefficient using the displacement-torque curve and estimating a clamping force from the friction coefficient and the non-linear coefficient. The claimed generation, determinations, calculations and estimations are mathematical calculations and/or concepts as evidenced by applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0030]-[0045] and Figs. 4-5. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus the claim recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual use of the clamping force estimation in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having machine executable instructions for clamping force estimation of an electromechanical brake (EMB) system causing a processor core to execute operations, the operations comprising:
receiving displacement data in response to disengaging an actuation piston moving linearly, wherein the displacement data includes positions of an electric motor based on an air gap interval between magnets of the EMB system;
generating a displacement-torque curve based on the displacement data and motor torque data of the electric motor of the EMB system for a braking episode having a switchover time;
determining a high torque value and a low torque value at the switchover time from the displacement-torque curve;
calculating a friction coefficient based on the high torque value and the low torque value;
determining a non-linear coefficient from the displacement-torque curve;
and estimating a clamping force for a constant speed based on the friction coefficient and the non-linear coefficient.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the determination and calculation processes are performed by a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.2
The data receiving steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitation of a sensor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the process steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Likewise, claims 9 and 16 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore ineligible for similar reasons.
The dependent claims are also ineligible. The claims either add to the mental process (claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10-14, and 16-19), or add insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 5 and 20). Thus, the dependent claims are also rejection as ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
1 Alternatively, the claim could be construed as mathematical calculations, another form of abstract idea.
2 See also Footnote 18 in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), “[Appellant] claim[s] that his mathematical algorithm, when related to a computer program, will improve the existing process for updating alarm units. Very simply, our holding today is that a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.”