Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 17 and 18 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 17 and 18 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 17 and 18 similarly recite “a computer-implemented method of applying a trajectory planner for a mobile robot in a scenario to control the mobile robot responsive to at least one other agent of the scenario the method comprising: determining a scenario parameter set for the scenario and a likelihood of the scenario parameter set, wherein the likelihood of a scenario parameter set is representative of a probability of occurrence of the scenario represented by that scenario parameter set; computing an impact score for a failure event or near failure event between the mobile robot and the other agent occurring in an instance of the scenario, the impact score quantifying severity of the failure event or near failure event; computing a risk score for the instance of the scenario based on the impact score and the likelihood of the scenario parameter set; generating control signals to implement a planned trajectory based on the risk score; and controlling the mobile robot based on the control signals”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 18 of “determining a scenario parameter set for the scenario and a likelihood of the scenario parameter set” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a scenario parameter set for the scenario and a likelihood of the scenario parameter set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 18 of “wherein the likelihood of a scenario parameter set is representative of a probability of occurrence of the scenario represented by that scenario parameter set” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “being representative of a probability of occurrence” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may make (calculate) the likelihood of a scenario parameter set representative of a probability of occurrence of the scenario represented by that scenario parameter set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 18 of “computing an impact score for a failure event or near failure event between the mobile robot and the other agent occurring in an instance of the scenario, the impact score quantifying severity of the failure event or near failure event” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computing [calculating]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compute an impact score for a failure event or near failure event between the mobile robot and the other agent occurring in an instance of the scenario, the impact score quantifying severity of the failure event or near failure event with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 18 of “computing a risk score for the instance of the scenario based on the impact score and the likelihood of the scenario parameter set” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computing [calculating]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compute a risk score for the instance of the scenario based on the impact score and the likelihood of the scenario parameter set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 17 and 18 of “generating control signals to implement a planned trajectory based on the risk score” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “implementing (designing) a planned trajectory” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may implement a planned trajectory based on the risk score with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “controlling the mobile robot based on the control signals”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 2 recites additional elements such as “outputting the risk score on a graphical user interface”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 3 of “the likelihood is determined from at least one distribution associated with the scenario parameter set” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine the likelihood from at least one distribution associated with the scenario parameter set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “the scenario is simulated based on the scenario parameter set, the mobile robot being an ego agent of the simulated scenario”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “wherein the likelihood is determined from at least one distribution associated with the scenario parameter set, and wherein the scenario parameter set is sampled for running the simulated scenario based on the at least one parameter distribution used to determine the likelihood of the scenario parameter set” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” and “sampling” [selecting] in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine the likelihood from at least one distribution associated with the scenario parameter set and sample the scenario parameter set for running the simulated scenario based on the at least one parameter distribution used to determine the likelihood of the scenario parameter set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 6 recites additional elements such as “the risk score is stored in association with the scenario parameter set on which the instance of the scenario is based”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data storing under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “generating display data for controlling a display to render a visualization of: (i) multiple scenario parameter sets, and (ii) a risk score computed for each scenario parameter set”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as “the failure event is a collision event between the mobile robot and the other agent”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 9 of “the impact score generally quantifies how close the trajectory planner came to a failure event in the scenario” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “quantifying [calculating]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine the likelihood from at least one distribution associated with the scenario parameter set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 10 of “applying one or more performance evaluation rules to a trace of the mobile robot and a trace of the other agent generated in the instance of the scenario, wherein the failure event or near failure event is a failure or near failure on at least one performance evaluation rule” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “applying a trace [predicting a trace]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may apply one or more performance evaluation rules to a trace of the mobile robot and a trace of the other agent generated in the instance of the scenario, wherein the failure event or near failure event is a failure or near failure on at least one performance evaluation rule with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 11 of “each performance evaluation rule is associated with an importance value, and the impact score is computed based on an importance value of the at least one performance evaluation rule” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computing [calculating]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compute the impact score based on an importance value of the at least one performance evaluation rule with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 12 of “identify and mitigate an issue in the trajectory planner” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” and “mitigating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify and mitigate an issue in the trajectory planner with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 13 of “using the risk score to identify and mitigate an issue in said another component” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” and “mitigating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify and mitigate an issue in the trajectory planner using the risk score with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “the trajectory planner is testing in combination with another component”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 14 of “one parameter distribution is encoded in a scenario model created via a scenario design interface” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “encoding” [inserting or including] in the context of this claim encompasses the user may encode one parameter distribution in a scenario model created via a scenario design interface with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 15 of “the at least one parameter distribution is learned from a dataset of real scenario data” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “learning” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may learn the at least one parameter distribution from a dataset of real scenario data with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 16 recites additional elements such as “the scenario parameter set describes characteristics of a road layout and the at least one other agent”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-16 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-16 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Gopro (DE 212017000227), in view of Korjus (US PGPub 20210397187), and Raichelgauz (US PGPub 20200283030) failed to disclose of a computer-implemented method of applying a trajectory planner for a mobile robot in a scenario to control the mobile robot responsive to at least one other agent of the scenario the method comprising: determining a scenario parameter set for the scenario and a likelihood of the scenario parameter set, wherein the likelihood of a scenario parameter set is representative of a probability of occurrence of the scenario represented by that scenario parameter set; computing an impact score for a failure event or near failure event between the mobile robot and the other agent occurring in an instance of the scenario, the impact score quantifying severity of the failure event or near failure event; computing a risk score for the instance of the scenario based on the impact score and the likelihood of the scenario parameter set; generating control signals to implement a planned trajectory based on the risk score; and controlling the mobile robot based on the control signals, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding the claim 1, the prior-art, Gopro, Korjus and Raichelgauz teaches of a computer-implemented method of applying a trajectory planner for a mobile robot in a scenario to control the mobile robot responsive to at least one other agent of the scenario the method comprising: determining a scenario parameter set for the scenario and a likelihood of the scenario parameter set, computing an impact score for a failure event or near failure event between the mobile robot and the other agent occurring in an instance of the scenario, the impact score quantifying severity of the failure event or near failure event; computing a risk score for the instance of the scenario based on the impact score and the likelihood of the scenario parameter set; and controlling the mobile robot based on the control signals.
However, the prior-art, Gopro, Korjus and Raichelgauz failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “generating control signals to implement a planned trajectory to control mobile robot based on the failure event or near failure event between the mobile robot and the other agent occurring in an instance of the scenario and the likelihood of the scenario parameter set”, for claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Gopro, Korjus and Raichelgauz failed to teach the system of claim 17 and the product of claim 18. Thus, claims 1-18 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mahadevan (US PGPub 20250091609): Mahadevan teaches that the ADAS constraint information received by the mobile device may enable the route planning application to generate route options which reduce the likelihood of these unexpected scenarios occurring by planning a route that avoids situations that are known to have poor collaboration score based on the crowdsourced data and/or historical data associated with the operator.
Bagschik (US 20250208620 A1): Bagschik teaches that the score for a scenario may be weighted based at least in part on a metric associated with likelihood of occurrence of that scenario and/or a relative metric for operating on a particular road segment, for example as determined using the techniques discussed above. A control system of the vehicle, such as a planning component, perception component, or prediction component of the vehicle may be updated based at least in part on the metric indicative of performance (e.g., a newer software version may be approved if a safety metric improves). The updated component(s) may be transmitted to one or more vehicles, which may be controlled based at least in part on the updated component(s). Additionally, or alternatively, based at least in part on the safety metric meeting or exceeding a threshold amount, the system may clear one or more vehicles of a fleet of vehicles to drive over particular roads, in particular regions, or in certain scenarios identified by the scenario types meeting those thresholds. In some such cases, one threshold may be used to approve a region for autonomous driving and another threshold may be defined in which a vehicle may drive autonomously with teleoperator input.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 17 and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the amendment to the claims 1, 17 and 18 does not recite mental process at least and this it would help overcome the abstract idea rejection, the examiner updated the rationale for the amendment to the claims, where implementing a planned trajectory is considered a mental process and using a computer to either design or draw the trajectory/path would generate control signals as a result. The examiner would like to point out that the operations from the claim limitation can be still determined as mental processes as long as they can be performed in a human mind using a general-purpose computer. Please see the following section from the MPEP and the updated rationale provided for the amendment to the claims 1, 17 and 18.
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached on 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights