DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 09/16/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 5-11, 15, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 17-18 have been canceled.
Claims 21-22 have been newly added.
Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding specification objection: No response has been entered regarding the previous specification objection in updated the specification to include a “Cross-Reference to Related Applications” section, therefore the specification objection stands.
Regarding claim objections: Applicant’s amendment/arguments to claims 1-20 have overcome the claim objection raised in the previous action; therefore the claim objection are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding 101 rejection: Applicant requests withdrawal of the 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examine will explain the 101 analysis: STEP One: The claim is directed to a statutory category, because a series of steps for processing/facilitating data satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts) (Step 1 : YES). STEP 2A Prong One: Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a system and method of an abstract idea of detecting a state change, a request from user, and the determination whether a request is completed or not, which concludes that the claims include an abstract idea. This idea is similar to the basic concept of a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, which has been found by the courts to be an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES). STEP 2A Prong Two: Now, the claim is analyzed to determine where the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The receiving, storing, and newly added acquiring limitations involve mere gather of data which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the additional elements, processors and memory, are recited at a high level of generality to simply perform the generic computer functions. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO) STEP 2B: Finally, the claim does not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of determining soil information and recommending an agricultural prescription for the soil. The additional elements, control system, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an incentive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection for claims 1-20 is maintained.
****Examiner Note: Examiner would like to indicate that the amended limitation of “at least one acquired sensory information associated with a user” does not resolve the issue regarding the 101 rejection. Acquiring sensory information involve mere gather of data which are insignificant extra-solution activity, as stated above. Even if the Applicant introduced a sensor to acquire this information, this does not remedy the issue. Sensors recited at a high level of generality to simply perform the generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, no improvement is present within the claim. Also, processing signals as stated on page [9] of the remarks, does not improve the technical field. Processing signals are insignificant extra-solution activities. Likewise, on page [9], determining whether the user’s request is completed or not is an abstract idea of itself because one of ordinary skilled in the art can determine mentally if the request is completed or not with or without a time period. Therefore, no improvement is present within the claim. Furthermore, Examiner would like to provide a solution to overcome the current 101 rejection. Instant application paragraph [0019] discloses “The control systems 24 are suitable for controlling the flight parameters of the aircraft 10 and the avionic states of the aircraft 10”. If Applicant would incorporate an aircraft control aspect based on the received/completed inputs/requests, this would overcome the current 101 rejection.
Regarding 112(b) rejection: Applicant’s amendment/arguments to claim 19 has overcome the 112(b) rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding 102 rejection: Applicant’s amendment/arguments to claims 1-4, 7-10, 14-15, and 19-20 has overcome the 102 rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 102 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant’s amendment/arguments to claims 16-18 has overcome the 103 rejections raised in the previous action; therefore the 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
modal state change detection module configured to receive in claim 1
multimodal interpretation module configured to store in claim 1
disambiguation module configured to provide in claim 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specifications for some the above limitations:
modal state change detection module - Figure 1 - item 32, paragraph 0031
multimodal interpretation module – Figure 1 - item 34, paragraph 0031
disambiguation module – Figure 1 - item 36, paragraph 0031
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC OR AS A TEXT FILE VIA THE OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (EFS-WEB).
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2424 and 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on compact disc or as a text file via the Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web.)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1 and 20.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1 and 20 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“detect a discrete state change of the modal input from a previously assigned discrete state toward a newly assigned current discrete state of the modal input and to determine data characteristics of the current discrete state of the modal input following the detected state change": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally detect change. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
"detect a user request from at least one of the modal inputs received": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally detect a request. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
"determine whether said request is sufficiently complete to be carried out, and, in an event of an incomplete request, to complete the incomplete request from at least one of the stored up-to-date data characteristics of the current discrete state of another modal input distinct from each modal input from which the request was detected”: A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a complete or incomplete request. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “receive at least two distinct modal inputs, each modal input being generated from a same modality or from respectively at least two distinct modalities”, “acquired sensory information” and “store and update data characteristics of the current discrete state of the modal input following the detected state change”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “control system” is recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts 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 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The prior art fails to explicitly teach a multimodal interpretation module configured, at each detected state change of one of the modal inputs, to store and update data characteristics of the current discrete state of the modal input following the detected state change; the multimodal interpretation module further being configured, on each detected user request, to determine whether said request is sufficiently complete to be carried out, and, in an event of an incomplete request, to complete the incomplete request from at least one of the stored up-to-date data characteristics of the current discrete state of another modal input distinct from each modal input from which the request was detected. Claims 2-16, 18-19, and 21-22 would also be allowed if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 10,296,289 – Provides human-computer interactions and, more specifically, to interactions that initiate a command in view of user input over multiple different modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile).
USPGPub 2018/0301151 – Provides human-machine dialog, in particular, techniques to improve dialog naturalness and efficiency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662