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 .
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.
1. Claims 17-23 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
3. Step 2A:
4. Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental processes.
5. The claim language recites a method of determining a frequency of rotation of an object about the axis based on the sizes of the portions of the images representing the object over time. The method includes capturing images/frames of an object, analyzing the images to determine a size of a portion of the image representing the object, and lastly determining the frequency of rotation. However, the method represents the abstract idea of a mental process as stated in Electric Power Grid and MPEP 2106. In Electric Power Grid, the Court held that “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Using claim 1 as exemplary, the collecting information step is provided gathering of object image data. The analysis step is encompassed by determining a size of a portion of the image representing the object and determining the frequency of rotation of the object about the axis. While no, output is provided by claim language, such is not necessary as the other Electric Power Grid steps are presented in the claims.
Additionally, claims 18-23 and 25-28 are related to the analyzing step as said claims define how the information is analyzed. Other limitations follow the same logic pattern, such as claims 18, 19, 30 and 31 that are both considered collecting steps. Furthermore, claims 20-23 and 32-35 perform analyzing steps. Thus, the claims represent a mental process under the guidance of Electric Power Group and the MPEP.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims are only directed to determining the frequency of an object around a non-symmetry-based axis. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than a generic computer elements in the form of an imaginer, i.e. a camera, a signal producer, and a sensor. For example, a camera is well understood and routine in the art of object tracking, and thus capturing an oblong shaped object is well within the functions of a camera. However Examiner takes Official Notice that each are well-known, understood, and routine in the art. For those reasons the claims are rejected as non-patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 17 as amended is not directed to an abstract idea at least in part because claim 17 is directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. The field of study for analyzing sports ball trajectories previously suffered from a lack of a practical method for determining the complex aerodynamic factors experienced by a non- spherical ball such as a football through toppling flight. These factors are highly complex and highly interesting to observers for a number of reasons.” However, this is not a technical problem rooted in computer technology, nor do the claims demonstrate a particular machine as the claims only present a processor, a camera mechanism, and a program for determining frequency. Reviewing a similar case in Diamond v Diehr wherein the Court stated that mathematical formulas operated by a computer program can be deemed patentable, the instant application lacks the detail that the claims in the Diehr contained. In the instant application, the steps only include capturing footage with a camera, and producing a frequency with the computer program. Thus, due to this lack of detail, Examiner can only conclude that the claims are not patent eligible subject matter.
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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang HU can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights