Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/5/26, with respect to examiner’s rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to eliminate the 112 rejections by including additional structures. Applicant has also amended the claims to include previously indicated allowable subject matter. In addition, Examiner notes the newly added independent claim includes the same allowable subject matter and structure such that newly presented independent claim 17 is also allowable. However, even with the indicated allowable subject matter entered in the independent claims, the claims fails to overcome the 101 issues previously raised by the Examiner. Furthermore, Applicant has not actually responded to said 101 claims. The method steps of the claims even with the newly amended limitations fails to provide practical structure and leave the claims in merely a theoretical or mathematical realm. In addition, the method steps of the claims also raise further 101 isssues because the steps fail to connect/relate/link with the determination step doing different requirements from what is stated in the determination. As such, Examiner has withdrawn his 112 rejections but maintained the 101 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the invention is tied merely to an abstract idea due to insufficient structure to support the method claim. The claims recite a method with the only step required being “determining”, “evaluating”, and “concluding” a number of functions. The determining of the functions appears to just be the application and not directed to a specific structure beyond that of the equations that support the functions. The evaluating appears to be done by a physical structure but is merely a mathematical event, and the concluding appears to be just another determination. There does not appear to be any applied physical steps. Furthermore the specification seems to further support Examiner’s assertion of the method being merely mathematical equations without any physical application. See, Paragraph [0034]. The only arguable physical structure can be found in the dependent claims is the displaying of a warning message and this is not sufficient to eliminate the 101 rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim1 , 3, 5, 9, 13, 15 -22 would be allowed if Applicant can overcome said 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection without the addition of new matter. As applicant has placed previously indicated allowable subject matter into the independent claims. Examiner suggests incorporating additional structure and method steps into the method claims to remove it from being something that is merely purely theoretical or mathematical.
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 DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745