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 amendments and arguments are not persuasive over the previous 35 USC 101 rejections. The claims recite abstract mental and mathematical concepts. Claim 1 recites a step to “determine” which is a mental process. The claim further recites a step to “store” and “report” data and those are extra-solution activity that do not add meaningful limitations to the judicial exception. The claim merely parses data, evaluates it, and reports the data. This is all done using generic computer components (processor, memory, etc.). The functions of the computer are not improved but are merely being used as tools to implement the abstract idea.
The arguments and amendments are persuasive over the previous 35 USC 103 rejections.
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, 3, 5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a]n on-board device that enables a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver to receive GNSS data and is connectable to both a constant power supply line and an ACC power supply line, the on-board device comprising: the GNSS receiver; and a system controller, wherein the GNSS receiver includes; a first memory; and a first processor coupled to the first memory, the first processor being configured to: store the GNSS data in the first memory in a volatile manner in a first case where power is supplied to the on-board device from the constant power supply line; and output a status the GNSS receiver in a second case where the power is supplied to the on-board device from the ACC power supply line, the status including a current time that is internally stored by the GNSS receiver, and the system controller includes: a second memory; and a second processor coupled to the second memory, the second processor being configured to: determine whether the on-board device is connected to the constant power supply line in the second case, where the power is supplied to the on-board device from the ACC power supply line, based on the status of the GNSS receiver by determining whether the current time included in the status is a predetermined initial value; and in response to determining that the on-board device is not connected to the constant power supply line by determining that the current time is the predetermined initial value, make a report that the on-board device is not connected to the constant power supply line.”
The limitation of “determine whether the on-board device is connected to the constant power supply line in the second case, where the power is supplied to the on-board device from the ACC power supply line, based on the status of the GNSS receiver by determining whether the current time included in the status is a predetermined initial value; and in response to determining that the on-board device is not connected to the constant power supply line by determining that the current time is the predetermined initial value,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” “processor,” and “power supply line,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device” and other hardware language, “determine… [and] report” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper via visual inspection determining status and making a report. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “device” and the other said hardware to enact determining and reporting. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “store the GNSS data in the first memory in a volatile manner in a first case where power is supplied to the on-board device from the constant power supply line; and output a status the GNSS receiver in a second case where the power is supplied to the on-board device from the ACC power supply line, the status including a current time that is internally stored by the GNSS receiver.” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “make a report that the on-board device is not connected to the constant power supply line.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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.
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 a device to enact the determining and reporting steps 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.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he on-board device according to claim 1, wherein the on-board device includes an electronic toll collection system (ETC) on-board device.”
The limitation of “on-board device according to claim 1, wherein the on-board device includes an electronic toll collection system (ETC) on-board device,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” “processor,” and “power supply line,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device” and other hardware language, “determine… [and] report” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper via visual inspection determining status and making a report. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “device” and the other said hardware to enact determining and reporting. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
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 a device to enact the determining and reporting steps 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.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he on-board device according to claim 1, wherein the second processor is further configured to store the GNSS data in the second memory in a non-volatile manner in the first case where the power is supplied to the on-board device from the constant power supply line.”
The limitation of “on-board device according to claim 1,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” “processor,” and “power supply line,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device” and other hardware language, “determine… [and] report” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper via visual inspection determining status and making a report. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “device” and the other said hardware to enact determining and reporting. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitation of “store the GNSS data in the second memory in a non-volatile manner in the first case where the power is supplied to the on-board device from the constant power supply line.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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.
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 a device to enact the determining and reporting steps 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.
Claims 5, 7 and 10 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1, 3 and 9.
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 JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113