DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the claims filed June 27, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of determining sufficient electrical energy levels. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance using exemplary claim 1:
1. A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
determining a group of samples that identifies respective trips underwent by a group of drones, wherein respective samples of the group of samples identify respective distances traveled for the respective trips, respective amounts of energy consumption applicable to the respective trips, and respective environmental factors present during the respective trips; and
determining whether there is sufficient electrical energy to undergo a current trip to a destination, based on the group of samples and prevailing environmental conditions, to produce a result, in response to the result being indicative that there is sufficient electrical energy to undergo the current trip, traveling to the destination, and in response to the result being indicative that there is insufficient electrical energy to undergo the current trip, traveling to a charging station.
The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is directed to a system, which satisfies step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the new two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless it: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of determining sufficient electrical energy levels, which is an abstract idea that can be performed by a user mentally and falls within the Mental Processes grouping. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea) and is also a fundamental economic principle of mitigating risk and falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The October 2019 Update explains on pages 7-8 that claims do recite a mental process when the claim limitations can practically be performed in the human mind. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include Electric Power Group, LLC which was directed to collection information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and Classen which was directed to collecting and comparing known information. The courts have also found that claims that require a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (page 8 of the October 2019 Update). The Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer
The claim includes the use of at least one or more processors and at least one memory. These additional elements are generic and are being used in their ordinary capacity. The use of these additional elements amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the Appellant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Prong Two: NO, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application similar to that shown in MPEP 2106.05).
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The remaining claims are rejected under similar grounds and do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is noted that the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Regarding computer functions, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states: The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
ii. Shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
iv. Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017);
v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
vi. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
vii. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yogesha et al (US 2021/0407303).
As per claim 1, Yogesha et al teach a system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
determining a group of samples that identifies respective trips underwent by a group of drones (see at least paragraphs [0020,0022]; vehicles can include drones), wherein respective samples of the group of samples identify respective distances traveled for the respective trips, respective amounts of energy consumption applicable to the respective trips, and respective environmental factors present during the respective trips (see at least paragraphs [0060-0069]; historical flights data of previous flights and related data such as environment/weather data and energy drain); and
determining whether there is sufficient electrical energy to undergo a current trip to a destination, based on the group of samples and prevailing environmental conditions, to produce a result, in response to the result being indicative that there is sufficient electrical energy to undergo the current trip, traveling to the destination, and in response to the result being indicative that there is insufficient electrical energy to undergo the current trip, traveling to a charging station (see at least paragraph [0074]; prediction on whether there is sufficient energy is made based on information such as historical data and route information. If there is insufficient energy, corrective action is taken such as the vehicle being directed to the closest base station).
As per claim 2, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective environmental factors comprise respective ambient temperatures (see at least paragraphs [0064-0065]).
As per claim 3, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective environmental factors comprise respective humidities (see at least paragraphs [0064-0065]).
As per claim 4, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective environmental factors comprise respective air pressures (see at least paragraph [0047]).
As per claim 5, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective environmental factors comprise respective wind velocities relative to respective flight paths (see at least paragraph [0066]).
As per claim 6, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective samples of the group of samples identify respective altitudes at which respective drones of the groups of drones flew (see at least paragraphs [0065]).
As per claim 7, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective samples of the group of samples identify respective non-flying activities of respective drones of the groups of drones (see at least paragraphs [0060-0069].
As per claim 8, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective samples of the group of samples identify respective areas mapped by respective drones of the groups of drones (see at least paragraph [0063]; historical data provides detailed analysis on previous flights).
As per claim 9, Yogesha et al teach wherein the respective samples of the group of samples identify respective activities relating to respective functionalities of the respective drones, and wherein the respective functionalities were omitted from respective drones of the group of drones at respective times of manufacture of the respective drones (see at least paragraph [0066]; system may recommend a newer features such as a 4D trajectory based on historical data).
Claims 10-20 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664