DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This non-final office action is in response to the Amendments filed on 01 April 2026, regarding application number 18/688,890.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01 April 2026 has been entered.
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
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-16 remain pending in the application, while claims 2-4, 7 and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 11-16 are new.
Examiner acknowledges that the claims will no longer be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-10, filed 01 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons discussed in the prior office action and below. Applicant has made the following arguments:
“Applicant submits that the claims, as amended, satisfy Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis because they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application …
Independent claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended to recite that the updated predicted water level information is distributed "to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river." This amendment specifies a concrete, real-world application of the distributed information that goes beyond mere data distribution or insignificant extra- solution activity…
Applicant submits that the claims as amended are directed to improving maritime navigation safety by enabling ships to determine safe passage under bridges. This constitutes a specific technological improvement in the field of ship navigation, not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computer components. The amended claims impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea by requiring that the updated predicted water level information be distributed specifically to ships for the purpose of determining safe bridge passage.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the “distribute the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.”, the limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of distributing water level data) and amounts to post-solution outputting of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The “distribute the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships” step is mere data gathering because there is no particular way of distributing the information, while the “for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.” is intended use of how the information can be utilized. The claim does not include a positive control step of passing the plural ships under bridges, but instead generally states that the predicted level information is for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges. Additionally, even if the “determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river” was positively recited in the claims, the step would still encompass a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner recommends to amend the claims to include a positive control step of the ship(s), such as from paragraph [0075 “For example, the interface 11 also supplies signals relating to the control of the ship generated by the controller 13 to each component of the ship controlling the operation of the ship. For example, the ship includes a driving source such as an engine or an electric motor, a screw for generating a propulsive force in the traveling direction based on the driving force from the driving source, a thruster for generating a lateral propulsive force based on the driving force from the driving source, and a rudder which is a mechanism for controlling the traveling direction of the ship.”] of the PGPub.
“With regard to the Specific Algorithm as a Solution, to solve this Technical Problem, the claimed "index representing variation" is not a generic mathematical weight. Amended claim 1 recites that the weighted average is calculated "using the index as the weight value." This specific calculation cannot practically be performed in the human mind, especially when processing data from multiple ships simultaneously. This is not merely a generic mathematical concept but a specific technical calculation that produces a concrete technical benefit.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification describes the claimed “index” as a standard deviation in [0109 “…an index (for example, a standard deviation) representing a variation in the height value of each data of the water surface measurement data used for calculation of the water surface distance.”] of the PGPub. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been more than capable of calculating a standard deviation index mentally and/or via the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the claims do not yet require processing data from multiple ships simultaneously nor in real-time. Instead, claim 1 states “wherein each of the plural ships calculates the measured water level at the each water level prediction point based on measurement data outputted by a measurement device provided at the each of the plural ships”. The “plural ships” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose water level environment. The ships are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the mental steps. The calculation could for example be executed with historical measurement data and does not necessarily have to occur in real time or simultaneously between ships.
“Indeed, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a specific technical improvement to water level prediction systems for river navigation safety. The claims describe a distributed data collection system where plural ships with measurement devices collect real-world water level data, calculate weighted averages using variation indices, and update predicted water level information that is then distributed back to ships for safe bridge passage determination, this is a concrete technological solution for improving navigation safety, not merely mental calculations. That is, the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind because they require receiving measured water level information from plural ships traveling on a river, where each ship calculates water levels using measurement devices (lidars), and then performing weighted averaging across multiple ships' data using variation indices, this coordinated real-time data collection and processing from distributed physical sensors on moving vessels is inherently technological and cannot be replicated mentally.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons discussed above and below. See full analysis below for dependent claim 12 which incorporates lidar as the measurement device.
“Claims 5 and 6 depend from amended claim 1 and are therefore patent eligible for the same reasons as claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 9 have been amended with the same limitation as claim 1, and are patent eligible for the same reasons, as they integrate any alleged abstract idea into the practical application of enabling ships to determine safe passage under bridges on the river. Claims 11-16 each depend, either directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. They are believed to be patentably distinguished for at least the same reasons as expressed above in relation to the independent claim from which each depends, as well as for the additional elements recited therein and in any intervening claim.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons discussed above because amended claim 1 is not patent eligible. See full analysis below.
“New Claim 11 recites that the weighted average is calculated "by weighting each representative value by a reciprocal of a square of the index representing variation." This specific mathematical calculation, using the reciprocal of the variance (the square of the standard deviation) as the weight, cannot practically be performed in the human mind, especially when processing data from multiple ships simultaneously. This is not merely a generic mathematical concept but a specific technical calculation that produces a concrete technical benefit. As disclosed in the specification, "since the reciprocal of the variance value, which is obtained by squaring the standard deviation, is used for the weighting in the equation (7), the weight value becomes larger for such a result more stably calculated with little variation in the water level difference value, and the weighting value becomes smaller for such a result less stably calculated with large variation in the water level difference value," thereby calculating the corrected value "with high reliability by the process in which the stable results are emphasized." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0175]. This specific weighting methodology represents a technical improvement in how water level predictions are updated, emphasizing stable measurement results while de-emphasizing unstable ones, rather than an abstract mathematical concept that could be performed mentally.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation of “where in the calculation of the weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships is performed by weighing each representative value by a reciprocal of a square of the index representing variation.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process of claim 1, by further calculating the weighted average by performed by weighing each representative value by a reciprocal of a square of the index representing variation. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been more than capable of calculating a standard deviation index mentally and/or via the aid of pen and paper, as well as the additional weighted average calculating steps presented in claim 11. Additionally, equation (7) is not yet incorporated into the claim and even if it were claimed, the equation could calculated mentally.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been maintained. See full rejection details below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: Examiner recommends to amend “processor using stored instructions and being configure to:” to state “processor using stored instructions and being configured to:”
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, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a server device comprising:
a memory configured to store predicted water level information which indicates a predicted water level at each water level prediction point in a river;
a communication interface configured to receive, from plural ships which travel on the river, measured water level information regarding measured water levels measured by the plural ships,
wherein each of the plural ships calculates the measured water level at the each water level prediction point based on measurement data outputted by a measurement device provided at the each of the plural ships,
wherein the measured water level information from each of the plural ships includes, for the each water level prediction point:
a representative value of difference values between the predicted water level and the measured water level; and
an index representing variation in the difference values; and
a processor using stored instructions and being configure to:
calculate, for the each water level prediction point, a weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships using the index as the weight value;
update the predicted water level information based on the weighted average; and
distribute the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a “processor” as discussed above. Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “calculates the measured water level at the each water level prediction point,” “calculate, for the each water level prediction point, a weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships using the index as the weight value” and “update the predicted water level information based on the weighted average”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components “memory”, “communication interface” and “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “memory”, “communication interface” and “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a person calculating measured water level at various prediction points based on measurement data provided from plural ships, calculating at each point, a weighted average of representative values indicated by the measured water level information, and updating predicted water level knowledge based on the weighted average. The mere nominal recitation of the computer components does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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 indicated 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-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements “memory”, “communication interface” and “processor”. The “memory”, “communication interface” and “processor” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are described at high level of generality and are merely computer components being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim additionally recent additional elements “wherein each of the plural ships” calculates the measured water. The “plural ships” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose water level environment. The ships are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the mental steps. For example, the claim does not require real-time nor simultaneous calculation by the ships, but only generally links the ships to the calculation step. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim recites additional steps of “store predicted water level information which indicates a predicted water level at each water level prediction point in a river;”, “receive, from plural ships which travel on the river, measured water level information regarding measured water levels measured by the plural ships,”, “measurement data outputted by a measurement device provided at the each of the plural ships,”, “wherein the measured water level information from each of the plural ships includes, for the each water level prediction point: a representative value of difference values between the predicted water level and the measured water level; and an index representing variation in the difference values;” and “distribute the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.”.
The above steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing, receiving and distributing water level data) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the “determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.” in the distribute step is intended use of utilizing the information, but there are no particulars of how the information is distributed nor no positive control step. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional “ships” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, for the additional elements in the claim in which the “memory”, “communication interface” and “processor” are merely a tool being used to perform the abstract idea, the same analysis applies here as above. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the “memory”, “communication interface” and “processor” included in the server are conventional computer components, and does not provide any indication that the server could be anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 11-16
Claim 5 recites the server device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to update, based on the weighted average acquired for each water level prediction point, the predicted water level at the each water level prediction point.
Claim 6 recites the server device according to claim 1,
wherein the predicted water level information indicates predicted water levels at certain times at the each water level prediction point, and
wherein the processor is further configured to update a predicted water level at a certain time after a current time based on the measured water level information.
Claim 11 recites the server device according to claim 1,
where in the calculation of the weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships is performed by weighing each representative value by a reciprocal of a square of the index representing variation.
Claim 12 recites the server device according to claim 1,
wherein the measurement device is a lidar configured to measure a water surface distance between a ship reference position and a water surface.
Claim 13 recites the server device according to claim 1,
wherein each of the plural ships calculates the measured water level based on a ship reference height and a water surface distance measured by the measurement device.
Claim 14 recites the server device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to update the predicted water level information based on water level difference values calculated after an update time of the predicted water level information.
Claim 15 recites the server device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to distribute the updated predicted water level information in response to receiving request information from one of the plural ships specifying an area or a river.
Claim 16 recites the server device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor applies the updated predicted water level information to calculate a predicted clearance between a highest point of each ship and a bridge on the river.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite the “processor” as discussed above. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation of “update, based on the weighted average…”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process as discussed above, by updating the predicted water level at the each water level prediction point based on the weighted average acquired for each water level prediction point. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitations of “wherein the predicted water level information indicates…” and “update a predicted water level …”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process as discussed above, by further updating a predicted water level at a certain time after a current time based on the measured water level information. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation of “where in the calculation of the weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships is performed by weighing each representative value by a reciprocal of a square of the index representing variation.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process as discussed above, by calculating the weighted average by performed by weighing each representative value by a reciprocal of a square of the index representing variation. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation of “…measure a water surface distance between a ship reference position and a water surface.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “lidar”. That is, other than reciting the “lidar”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process as discussed above, by measuring a water surface distance between a ship reference position and a water surface. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation of “…calculates the measured water level based on a ship reference height and a water surface distance measured by the measurement device.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “plural ships”. That is, other than reciting the “plural ships”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process as discussed above, by calculating the measured water level based on a ship reference height and a water surface distance measured by the measurement device. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation of “…update the predicted water level information based on water level difference values calculated after an update time of the predicted water level information.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process as discussed above, by updating the predicted water level information based on water level difference values calculated after an update time of the predicted water level information. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation of “…calculate a predicted clearance between a highest point of each ship and a bridge on the river.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the person performing the mental process as discussed above, by calculating a predicted clearance between a highest point of each ship and a bridge on the river. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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 indicated 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-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claims 5-6 and 14-16 recite the additional element “processor”. The “processor” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose changing water level environment. The “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the above steps. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Similarly, claim 12 recites a “lidar” and claim 13 recites “the plural ships”. The “lidar” and “plural ships” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose changing water level environment. They are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the above steps. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Claim 15 recites additional steps “to distribute the updated predicted water level information in response to receiving request information from one of the plural ships specifying an area or a river.”. The above step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of distributing water level data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional “processor”, “lidar” and “plural ships” in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the “processor” included in the server is a conventional CPU, and does not provide any indication that the server could be anything other than a conventional computer component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claims 5-6 and 11-16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8 recites a control method executed by a computer, the computer referring to a storage device which stores predicted water level information which indicates a predicted water level at each water level prediction point in a river,
the control method comprising::
receiving, from plural ships, measured water level information regarding measured water levels measured by the plural ships which travel on the river,
wherein each of the plural ships calculates the measured water level at the each water level prediction point based on measurement data outputted by a measurement device provided at the each of the plural ships,
wherein the measured water level information from each of the plural ships includes, for the each water level prediction point:
a representative value of difference values between the predicted water level and the measured water level; and
an index representing variation in the difference values; and
calculating, for the each water level prediction point, a weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships using the index as the weight value: and
updating the predicted water level information based on the weighted average; and
distributing the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “calculating the measured water level at the each water level prediction point,” “calculating, for the each water level prediction point, a weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships using the index as the weight value” and “updating the predicted water level information based on the weighted average”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person calculating measured water level at various prediction points based on measurement data provided from plural ships, calculating at each point, a weighted average of representative values indicated by the measured water level information, and updating predicted water level knowledge based on the weighted average. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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 indicated 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-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim additionally recent additional elements “wherein each of the plural ships” calculates the measured water level. The “plural ships” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose water level environment. The ships are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the mental steps. For example, the claim does not require real-time nor simultaneous calculation by the ships, but only generally links the ships to the calculation step. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim recites additional steps of “receiving, from plural ships, measured water level information regarding measured water levels measured by the plural ships which travel on the river,” “measurement data outputted by a measurement device provided at the each of the plural ships,” “wherein the measured water level information from each of the plural ships includes, for the each water level prediction point: a representative value of difference values between the predicted water level and the measured water level; and an index representing variation in the difference values;” and “distributing the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.”
The above steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing, receiving and distributing water level data) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the “determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.” in the distributing step is intended use of utilizing the information, but there are no particulars of how the information is distributed nor no positive control step. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional “ships” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the server including the “processor” is a conventional computer component, and does not provide any indication that it could be anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program executed by a computer, the computer referring to a storage device which stores predicted water level information which indicates a predicted water level at each water level prediction point in a river, the program causing the computer to:
receive, from plural ships which travel on the river, measured water level information regarding measured water levels measured by the plural ships,
wherein each of the plural ships calculates the measured water level at the each water level prediction point based on measurement data outputted by a measurement device provided at the each of the plural ships,
wherein the measured water level information from each of the plural ships includes, for the each water level prediction point:
a representative value of difference values between the predicted water level and the measured water level; and
an index representing variation in the difference values; and
calculate, for the each water level prediction point, a weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships using the index as the weight value: and
update the predicted water level information based on the weighted average; and
distribute the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “calculates the measured water level at the each water level prediction point,” “calculate, for the each water level prediction point, a weighted average of the representative values indicated by the measured water level information from the plural ships using the index as the weight value” and “update the predicted water level information based on the weighted average”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “non-transitory computer readable medium”. That is, other than reciting the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a person calculating measured water level at various prediction points based on measurement data provided from plural ships, calculating at each point, a weighted average of representative values indicated by the measured water level information, and updating predicted water level knowledge based on the weighted average. The mere nominal recitation of the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception 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 indicated 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-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional element “non-transitory computer readable medium”, The “non-transitory computer readable medium” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose changing water level environment. The “non-transitory computer readable medium” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the above steps. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim additionally recent additional elements “wherein each of the plural ships” calculates the measured water. The “plural ships” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose water level environment. The ships are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the mental steps. For example, the claim does not require real-time nor simultaneous calculation by the ships, but only generally links the ships to the calculation step. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim recites additional steps of “receive, from plural ships which travel on the river, measured water level information regarding measured water levels measured by the plural ships,” “measurement data outputted by a measurement device provided at the each of the plural ships,” “wherein the measured water level information from each of the plural ships includes, for the each water level prediction point: a representative value of difference values between the predicted water level and the measured water level; and an index representing variation in the difference values;” and “distribute the updated predicted water level information to the plural ships for determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.”
The above steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing, receiving and distributing water level data) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the “determining whether the plural ships can pass under bridges on the river.” in the distribute step is intended use of utilizing the information, but there are no particulars of how the information is distributed nor no positive control step. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “ships” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the server including the “processor” is a conventional computer component, and does not provide any indication that it could be anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights