DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This final office action is in response to the Amendments filed on 31 October 2025, regarding application number 18/688,890.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9 remain pending in the application, while claims 2-4, 7 and 10 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 15 September 2025. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page, filed 31 October 2025, with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has stated they do not intend to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f); however, did not provide any reasoning for why the claims shouldn’t be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will remain for at least the reasons discussed in the prior office action and below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-6, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Step 2A of the patent eligibility analysis is not satisfied. The arguments also failed to specifically explain what features of the claim would placed the identified abstraction in practical application. See full rejection details below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a. “predicted water level information storage unit” in claim 1
b. “receiving unit” in claims 1, 4 and 7
c. “update unit” in claims 1-6
d. “distribution unit” in claim 1
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Regarding the limitations reciting the “predicted water level information storage unit”, the “receiving unit”, the “update unit” and the “distribution unit”, the specification discloses a computer in Figure 29 and its corresponding paragraphs and an algorithm for performing the claimed functions in Figures 30A-30B and their corresponding paragraphs, in the specification filed on 04 March 2024.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1, 5-6 and 8-9 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 processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute:
a predicted water level information storage unit configured to store predicted water level information which indicates a predicted water level at each water level prediction point in a river;
a receiving unit 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
an update unit configured 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: and
update the predicted water level information based on the weighted average; and
a distribution unit configured to distribute the updated predicted water level information.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites the “units” 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 “processor” and “units”. That is, other than reciting the “processor” and “units”, 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 “units” 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 “processor”, “predicted water level information storage unit”, the “receiving unit”, the “update unit” and the “distribution unit”. The “processor” and “units” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose changing water level environment. The “units” are 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 automates the mental steps. 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.”
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. 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 “processor” “units” 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” and “units” are conventional computer components, 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 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 5-6
Claim 5 recites the server device according to claim 2,
wherein the update unit is 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 update unit is configured to update a predicted water level at a certain time after a current time based on the measured water level information.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite the “units” 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 “update unit”. That is, other than reciting the “update unit”, 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 “update unit”. That is, other than reciting the “update unit”, 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.
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 recite additional elements “update unit”.
The above “update unit” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose changing water level environment. The “update unit” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the above steps. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
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 “update unit” in the claim amounts 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.
Claims 5-6 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.
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. 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.”
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. 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.
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 automates the mental steps. 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.”
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. 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
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 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