DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/10/2025 is being entered. Claims 1-10 are pending. Clams 1 and 9-10 are amended. The amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. However, after further consideration, the amendment does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Therefore, responsive to this amendment, this rejection has been made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 4-6 the claim recites “one boundary is acquired from known map information which is generated by detection performed by a sensor or be performed by ”. This is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests removing “be” for clarity. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Regarding claim 1, the claim incudes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 1 recites:
1. A vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method, comprising:
(A) providing at least one boundary, wherein generation of the at least one boundary is acquired from known map information which is generated by detection performed by a sensor or be performed by identifying boundaries in aerial photos or satellite images of restricted water domains using artificial intelligence image recognition;
(B) establishing a plurality of dummy ships along the at least one boundary, wherein the dummy ships are freezing and each of the plurality of dummy ships is connected to at least a part of another via an intersection point;
(C) sequentially forming a dummy ship domain and a dummy obstacle domain according to the each of the plurality of dummy ships and the intersection point; and
(D) sequentially generating a dummy ship anti-collision circle and a dummy obstacle anti-collision circle based on the dummy ship domain and the dummy obstacle domain when a sailing ship domain is to have a possibility of invading the dummy ship domain and the dummy obstacle domain.
The claim in its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) recites a person using a pen and paper (map of area where shoreline/boundary where ship cannot enter) drawing a boundary along the shoreline, drawing multiple ships along the boundary and connecting the ships at an intersection point, drawing a domain (ellipse/circle) where each of the multiple ships are and drawing another domain (ellipse/circle) where the intersection point is located, and drawing another ellipse/circle around each of the domains when a sailing ships domain (ellipse/circle) is going to invade (come close) the domains of the ships and intersection point. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas are as follows:
1. A vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method, comprising:
(A) providing at least one boundary, wherein generation of the at least one boundary is acquired from known map information which is generated by detection performed by a sensor or be performed by identifying boundaries in aerial photos or satellite images of restricted water domains using artificial intelligence image recognition;
(B) establishing a plurality of dummy ships along the at least one boundary, wherein the dummy ships are freezing and each of the plurality of dummy ships is connected to at least a part of another via an intersection point;
(C) sequentially forming a dummy ship domain and a dummy obstacle domain according to the each of the plurality of dummy ships and the intersection point; and
(D) sequentially generating a dummy ship anti-collision circle and a dummy obstacle anti-collision circle based on the dummy ship domain and the dummy obstacle domain when a sailing ship domain is to have a possibility of invading the dummy ship domain and the dummy obstacle domain.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) 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.
It is clear that Applicant’s claim does not comprise any of the above additional limitations that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the PEG 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 PEG 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f));
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); 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 (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “providing at least one boundary, wherein generation of the at least one boundary is acquired from known map information which is generated by detection performed by a sensor or be performed by identifying boundaries in aerial photos or satellite images of restricted water domains using artificial intelligence image recognition” amounts to mere date gathering from a data source (sensor or artificial intelligence (AI)), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), to determine the boundary.
Thus, taken alone, the additional element(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional element(s), when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, some the additional elements above were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. 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.
The boundary is generated from external sources (sensor or AI). Determining a boundary using known map information generated by a sensor is a well understood routine and conventional activity (see U.S. Publication No. 2023/0366699 A1, see Paragraph 0023) and determining boundaries using aerial/satellite images/photos using AI is also a well understood routine and conventional activity (see U.S. Publication No. 2018/0330435 A1, Paragraph 0023). Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 2 recites:
2. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one boundary is a shore boundary.
The claim further defines that the boundary that is drawn is a shore boundary. The bolded limitations are considered a mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 3 recites:
3. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 1, wherein the sailing ship domain is generated by an autonomous ship.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
3. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 1, wherein the sailing ship domain is generated by an autonomous ship.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) 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.
It is clear that Applicant’s claim does not comprise any of the above additional limitations that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the PEG 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 PEG 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f));
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); 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 (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element “wherein the sailing ship domain is generated by an autonomous ship” merely uses a computer (autonomous ship) as a tool to perform the abstract idea of generating the sailing ship domain (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional element has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 4 recites:
4. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 1, wherein the dummy ship domain is shaped as an ellipsoid.
The claim further defines that the dummy ship domain is shaped/drawn as an ellipsoid. The bolded limitations are considered a mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 5 recites:
5. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 4, wherein a diameter of a long axis of the ellipsoid is a connection line between a bow and a stern of a corresponding one of the plurality of dummy ships, and a radius of a short axis of the ellipsoid is a collision avoidance safety distance.
The claim in its BRI, further defines how the ellipse drawn and labeling the radius of a short axis of the ellipsoid as “a collision avoidance safety distance” . This is still considered a mental process using a pen and paper to draw an ellipse and label the ellipsoid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 6 recites:
6. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 5, wherein a ratio of the long axis to the short axis is between 2 and 100.
The claim in its BRI, further defines the ratio of the ellipse drawn. This is still considered a mental process using a pen and paper to draw an ellipse. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 7 recites:
7. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 5, wherein the dummy obstacle domain is shaped as a circle.
The claim in its BRI, further defines the that the dummy obstacle domain is a circle. This is still considered a mental process using a pen and paper to draw a circle around the intersection point of the ships. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 8 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 8 recites:
8. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 7, wherein a radius of the circle is the collision avoidance safety distance.
The claim in its BRI, further defines the that the dummy obstacle domain circles radius is a safety distance for collision. This is still considered a mental process using a pen and paper to label the radius of the circle as “a collision avoidance safety distance”. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 9 recites:
9. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 1, wherein in step (D), it is first determined which of the dummy ship domain and the dummy obstacle domain that the sailing ship domain has a possibility to encounter in course of navigating to a destination, the dummy ship anti-collision circle and the dummy obstacle anti-collision circle are generated according to the dummy ship domain and the dummy obstacle domain, and a collision avoidance navigation route is planned according to a bow direction of the sailing ship domain and a tangent direction closest to the dummy ship anti-collision circle and the dummy obstacle anti-collision circle that are possibly encountered.
The claim in its BRI recites a person using a pen and paper drawing anti-collision circles for the ship domain and obstacle domain when it is determined that the sailing ship domain has a possibility of encountering the ship domains and obstacle domains, and then drawing a collision avoidance navigation route according to a bow direction of the sailing ship domain and a tangent direction closest to the dummy ship anti-collision circle and the dummy obstacle anti-collision circle that are possibly encountered. The bolded limitations are considered a mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 10 recites:
10. The vessel navigation boundary collision avoidance method according to claim 1, wherein in step (D), the dummy ship domain and the dummy obstacle domain that are impossibly encountered are neglected.
The claim in its BRI involves not drawing anti-collision circles for the ship domains and the obstacle domains that are not going to be encountered.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter, and are not persuasive, as noted supra in the rejections of that claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/S.M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665