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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 are presented for Examination.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1, 10 [line 14, 12 respectively] the limitation keep or higher should be ‘ --keep or raise--' .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-4, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
a) Regarding claims 1,10
i) The limitations of “recording, via the processor, at least one performance indicator of the application, wherein the performance indicator corresponds to the performance target; estimating, via the processor, an estimated time that a temperature of the electronic device sustains less than a defense temperature” , is performing the evaluation in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper as a physical aid.
The limitation of “determining, via the processor, a score according to the performance indicator and the estimated time”., is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is performing the evaluation in the human mind with a collection of data/ parameters and analyzing the data to determine a score.
The imitation “.. while the application is running,” is what a every general purpose computer does which executes applications or operations . The general rule of thumb on generic computing elements or functions is from Alice itself: “Users usually operate their applications under the default settings ..” as stated in the specification document [para 0003]. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014). Hence the limitation amounts to a general purpose computer executing generic applications or functions, and do not amount to an inventive concept.
Hence the above limitations falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
ii)The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, “receiving, via the processor, at least one performance target from an application running on an electronic device” which amounts to mere data gathering, is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The limitation “the score indicates the application to raise, lower, or keep a current setting”, “wherein the score indicates the application to keep or higher the current setting, in response to the performance indicator indicating that the performance target has been met and the estimated time being longer than a first threshold”. merely provides an indication of setting based on the collection of data/ parameters and does not actually change any settings or operation of the application. Hence the limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
As explained by the Supreme court , the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well understood or conventional.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity that provides data for the exception, with mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic module, processor, memory components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
iii) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A Processor, a memory are all generic components. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity that is well understood, routine and conventional.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
b) Regarding claims 2, 3, 11, 12 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of recording the temperature of the electronic device , estimating the time according to the temperature of the electronic device, recording the temperature of the electronic device and the performance indicator of the application from the start time point to the end time point, is performing the evaluation in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper as a physical aid, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation of receiving a start time point and an end time point from the application which amounts to mere data gathering, is an insignificant extra-solution activity, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as stated above in claims 1, 10.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
b) Regarding Claims 4, 13, the limitations “recording, via the processor, a first temperature of the electronic device at a first time point and a second temperature of the electronic device at a second time point after the first time point”, is performing the evaluation in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper as a physical aid. The limitations of calculating the difference between the first and second temperature, difference between the second and defense temperature and estimating the time based on dividing the difference between the first temperature and the second temperature by the difference between the second temperature and the defense temperature, is based on the mathematical concept utilizing the values from the calculation step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as stated above in claims 1, 10.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 have been considered but does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
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 GAYATHRI SAMPATH whose telephone number is (571)272-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached on 5712701640. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GAYATHRI SAMPATH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2176
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights