Detailed Action
Claims 2-19 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 13, and 14 are currently amended.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite a specific a technological improvement to decision-capturing systems, namely using an individual’s physical body position and pathway traversal to capture decisions. Applicant emphasizes the claim 2 now requires physical pathways configured so that traversal through a particular pathway constitutes selection of a mutually exclusive option, with decisions automatically captured as the individual continuously travels along a path. Applicant argues that the claims are not merely generic computer implementation because they require machine-readable symbol readers or signal detectors positioned proximate to the pathways, which communicate detected traversal information to a computing system that increments counts in memory. Applicant further asserts that the claimed process improves prior decision-capturing systems by eliminating discrete manual input actions and enabling seamless decision recording. Applicant also disputes the mental-process characterization, contending that automatic real-time detection using RFID, NFC, optical, acoustic, magnetic, or similar detectors cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Response to Remark 1: Applicant arguments have been considered but are not persuasive because the claims remain directed to the abstract idea of collecting an individuals selection, categorizing the selection based on which option-associated pathway was traversed, and tallying or storing that selection, which is a form of organizing human activity and information collection/recordation. The recited pathways, machine-readable symbol readers, signal detectors, processor, and memory merely provide a generic technological environment for automating the capture and counting of selections, and the claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the detector, processor, memory, network, or other computer technology itself.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Indeed, no prior art reference has been identified that more closely teaches the claimed configuration in which an individual casts a vote/survey response or otherwise makes a decision by continuously traveling through a defined path having mutually exclusive physical pathway branches, where traversal through a particular branch itself constitutes and automatically captures the selected option. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
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 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-12:
Step 1
Claims 2-12 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 2 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of capturing and tallying individual selections. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Also, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The mental processes abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Claims recite a mental process when they recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The use of a physical aid to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions, and concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for implementing and tracking a decision-capturing process among individuals, the method comprising:
for each selectable option of a plurality of first selectable options, providing a corresponding plurality of physical pathways through which individuals may traverse, each of the plurality of physical pathways being associated with a different one of the plurality of first selectable options; wherein the physical pathways are configured such that an individual's traversal through a particular pathway constitutes a selection of the associated option from among mutually exclusive options, and wherein the individual's decision is captured based on which pathway the individual physically passes through, and wherein the method automatically captures the individual's decisions as the individual continuously travels along a path comprising the plurality of physical pathways; and
for each of the individuals,
providing an instruction to the individual to physically pass through one of the plurality of physical pathways to select one of the plurality of first selectable options;
detecting, by at least one processor, which physical pathway of the plurality of physical pathways that the individual passed through by utilizing a machine-readable symbol reader or a signal detector positioned proximate to the physical pathway, wherein the machine- readable symbol reader or signal detector reads a machine-readable symbol carried by the individual or detects a signal associated with the individual; and
incrementing, by the at least one processor, a count of selections by the individual for the selectable option of the first selectable options that is associated with the detected physical pathway in a nontransitory computer memory.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 2 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Indeed, the additional elements, when considered both individually and in combination, only involve a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 2, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 3-12 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 3 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
further comprising logically associating, by the at least one processor, the individual with the first selectable option that is associated with the detected physical pathway in a nontransitory computer memory.
Claim 4 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein detecting which physical pathway of the plurality of physical pathways that the individual passed through comprises:
providing a plurality of machine-readable symbol readers, each of the plurality of machine-readable symbol readers physically positioned proximate a different one of the plurality of physical pathways and logically associated therewith; and
reading, by the one of the plurality of machine-readable symbol readers associated with the physical pathway that the individual passed through, a machine readable symbol carried by the individual.
Claim 5 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein detecting which physical pathway of the plurality of physical pathways that the individual passed through comprises:
providing a plurality of signal detectors, each of the plurality of signal detectors physically positioned proximate a different one of the plurality of physical pathways and logically associated therewith; and
detecting a signal by the one of the plurality of signal detectors associated with the physical pathway that the individual passed through.
Claim 6 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein each of the plurality of signal detectors comprises an electromagnetic signal detector, an optical signal detector, an acoustic signal detector, or a magnetic signal detector.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein each of the plurality of physical pathways comprises:
a turnstile;
a pair of spaced-apart sidewalls that define the physical pathway;
a doorway; or a lane defined by one or more lane indicators.
Claim 8 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein at least some of the plurality of physical pathways are shielded from viewers by one or more privacy structures.
Claim 9 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
further comprising:
displaying the count of selections by the individuals on a display device.
Claim 10 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
further comprising:
displaying at least one of:
an overall count of selections by the individuals;
a count of one or more issues; or video of individuals entering or exiting the plurality of physical pathways.
Claim 11 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
further comprising:
logically associating, by the at least one processor, the individual with a time that the individual passed through the physical pathway in a nontransitory computer memory.
Claim 12 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein each of the plurality of physical pathways includes an identifier that indicates with which of the first selectable options the physical pathway is associated.
Claim 13:
Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, this claim falls within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 13 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of capturing and tallying individual selections. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Also, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The mental processes abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Claims recite a mental process when they recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The use of a physical aid to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions, and concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for implementing and tracking a decision-capturing process among individuals, the method comprising:
for each choice of a plurality of choices, wherein each choice comprises a plurality of selectable options, providing a corresponding plurality of physical pathways through which individuals may traverse, each of the plurality of physical pathways being associated with a different one of the plurality of selectable options of the choice; wherein the physical pathways are configured such that an individual's traversal through a particular pathway constitutes a selection of the associated option from among mutually exclusive options for that choice, and
wherein the individual's decision for each choice is captured based on which pathway the individual physically passes through, and wherein the method automatically captures the individual's decisions for each choice as the individual continuously travels along a path comprising the plurality of physical pathways for the plurality of choices and
for each of the individuals,
providing an instruction to the individual to physically pass through one of the plurality of physical pathways for each of the plurality of choices to select one of the plurality of selectable options for each of the plurality of choices;
detecting, by at least one processor, which physical pathway of the plurality of physical pathways that the individual passed through for each of the plurality of choices by utilizing a machine-readable symbol reader or a signal detector positioned proximate to each of the physical pathways, wherein the machine-readable symbol reader reads a machine-readable symbol carried by the individual or the signal detector detects signals associated with the individual; and
incrementing, by the at least one processor, a count of selections by the individuals for the selectable option of the selectable options that is associated with the detected physical pathway for each of the plurality of choices in a nontransitory computer memory.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 13 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Indeed, the additional elements, when considered both individually and in combination, only involve a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 13, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 14-19:
Step 1
Claims 14-19 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 14 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of capturing and tallying individual selections. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Also, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The mental processes abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Claims recite a mental process when they recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The use of a physical aid to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, and concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A system to implement and track a decision-capturing process among individuals, the system comprising:
a plurality of physical pathways through which individuals may traverse, each of the plurality of pathways being associated with a selectable option of a corresponding plurality of selectable options;
wherein the physical pathways are configured such that an individual's traversal through a particular pathway constitutes a selection of the associated option from among mutually exclusive options, and wherein the system captures the individual's decision based on which pathway the individual physically passes through, and wherein the system automatically captures the individual's decisions as the individual continuously travels along a path comprising the plurality of physical pathways
a detector; and
control circuitry configured to:
detect, using the detector, which of the physical pathways that individuals pass through; and
responsive to detecting that an individual passed through a particular physical pathway, increment a count for the selectable option that is associated with the particular physical pathway in a nontransitory computer memory.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 14 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Indeed, the additional elements, when considered both individually and in combination, only involve a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 14, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 15-19 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 15 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein the control circuitry is configured to logically associate the individual with the selectable option that is associated with the physical pathway in a nontransitory computer memory.
Claim 16 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein the detector comprises at least one of a machine-readable symbol reader, a camera, a mechanical detector, an electromagnetic signal detector, an optical signal detector, an acoustic signal detector, or a magnetic signal detector.
Claim 17 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein each of the plurality of physical pathways comprises:
a turnstile;
a pair of spaced-apart sidewalls that define the physical pathway; or a lane defined by one or more lane indicators.
Claim 18 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
further comprising:
a display device, wherein the control circuitry is configured to display the count for the selectable option on the display device.
Claim 19 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein each of the plurality of physical pathways includes an identifier that indicates with which of the selectable options the physical pathway is associated.
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US6529786B1 (Sim), discussing “The automatic registration gates 99 provide an alternative method of either registering for rides or amending a registration itinerary, by the user of a prompter simply passing through the appropriate automatic registration gate 99, and hence past the module detector 22. The module detector 22 detects the prompter and passes its identification code to the queue manager, which can then perform the necessary processing. In order to register for an additional ride on the same attraction, the guest simply has to pass through the appropriate automatic registration gate 99 again. Each automatic registration gate 99 is arranged so that only prompters passing through it are detected and may be located close to the corresponding ride, or elsewhere in the park. In the present embodiment, each module detector 22 includes circuitry to produce an “identify yourself” signal, to detect the prompter responses, and to transmit messages to the host computer 3. The power of the transmitted “identify yourself” signal, and hence its range, is set to reflect the function of the module detector, i.e. whether it is being used in a locator unit 7, a gate unit 2, or an automatic registration gate 99.” (Col. 15, ln. 11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights