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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing mathematical calculations without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims describe a device, and a method satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims describe a system, and a method satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Independent claim
The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve making evaluations of the obtained data based on math, determine values using mathematical either calculation or mathematical function, thereby describing an observation and evaluation of data. Such an observation and/or evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is “Mathematical concept” to implement a “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further process the obtained in either a mathematical relationships way, mathematical formulas or equation way, and mathematical calculation way. Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mathematical concepts directed to performing the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. In claims, the limitations describe performing various types of mathematical calculations/relations as ways for implementing the identified mental process in claims.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it is “Mathematical Concepts” to implement a “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Independent Claims indicate the System IHS comprising, processor, and memory. There is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a generic computer component such as processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor and the memory cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The independent claims as mentioned above obtain data, subject the obtained data to calculation, and then make an evaluation based on the calculation.
These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, processing of calculation by submitting the results of the calculation, and generically applying an evaluation based on the math, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite different mathematical relations and equation concepts, that can be performed by a human and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception.
There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using mathematical relation/equation/calculation in its ordinary capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
The dependent claims further detail the math as applied to the obtained data. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, independent claims contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The elements recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer component at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to determining, calculating and generically applying an evaluation to age and performance of information handling describes an insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
The dependent claims have no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing mathematical concepts/ calculation/ relation in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a generic computer component, or utilizing math to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure See PTO 892.
Prior art analysis
The most relevant prior art to the present application is Liu USPGPUB 20250216846 which calculates the useful age of an electronic system, but 846 uses different math calculation methods, and different parameters for the calculation.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE RIAD whose telephone number is (571)272-8185.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bonzo Bryce can be reached 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 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.
/A.R./
/Amine Riad/
Primary Examiner