Detailed Action
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 Claim
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 2-5 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 10-13 have been added.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 9-13 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that the limitations "receiving order information and obtaining personal data of pilots", "sending a reservation link to a user terminal of the target user", "if no reservation information returned by the user terminal of the target user based on the reservation link is received in a preset period, executing manual reservation", and "sending the dispatch information to a user terminal of a pilot corresponding to the dispatch information" cannot practically be performed in the human mind but relies on a nongeneric computer that operates the hardware and software. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong I of step 2A evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) if the claim recites and exception then we advance to Prong Two which evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claims are aimed at verifying a contracted pilot’s credential based on the object (e.g. job) prior to dispatching said pilot to perform an inspection by transmitting information. Humans can perform said tasks mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The steps of gathering data, analyzing data, and outputting a new instruction, constitute "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to certain arrangements involving contractual relations are directed to abstract ideas). The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The examiner further notes the limitations are aimed at following rules or instructions deemed certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite the judicial exceptions of a mental process (i.e. observation, judgment) and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in claims 1 and 9 by the generic computer device to receive data, analyze data, calculate results, and output data are purely conventional. Receiving data, analyzing data, calculating results, and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept; see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., 793 F.3d at 1335 (determining claims requiring “arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, determining” to “involve the normal, basic functions of a computer” and to be “conventional, routine, and well-known”). Further, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claims 1 and 9 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claims 1 and 9 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the former claim 5, now incorporated into the independent claims nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. Therefore, pending claim 1, 6, 7, and 9-13 are distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 9 recites “a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and being capable of running in the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the steps of the method for dispatching UAV inspectors according to claim 1; receiving order information and obtaining personal data of pilots, wherein the receiving order information comprises: in response to underwriting or claims request initiated by a target user, obtaining order information of the target user and contract information between an insurance company and an inspection party, verifying qualification of the inspection party based on the contract information between the insurance company and the inspection party and basic information of an object to be inspected; and if verification is passed, sending the order information to a server end of the inspection party; based on contract information between the inspection party and each contracted pilot in the personal data and the basic information of the object to be inspected, verifying inspection qualifications of pilots and taking pilots who have passed the verification as candidate pilots; obtaining a type of the object to be inspected in the order information; sending a reservation link to a user terminal of the target user; when receiving reservation information returned by the user terminal of the target user based on the reservation link, based on the reservation information, the type of the object to be inspected, the historical inspection data of the candidate pilots, and the order information, selecting a target pilot in the candidate pilots, and generating dispatch information corresponding to the target pilot; if no reservation information returned by the user terminal of the target user based on the reservation link is received in a preset period, executing manual reservation; and sending the dispatch information to a user terminal of a pilot corresponding to the dispatch information.” Claim 1 discloses similar limitations as Claim 8, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 9 are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6, 7, and 10-13 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 9 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “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.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 9 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least in ¶62-63 “In an embodiment, a computer device is provided, the computer device can be a server end, its internal structural diagram can be as shown in FIG. 4. The computer device includes a processor, a memory, a network interface, and a database connected through a system bus. Among them, the processor of the computer device is used to provide calculation and control ability. The memory of the computer device includes non-volatile and/or volatile storage media, as well as internal storage. The non-volatile storage medium stores operating systems, computer programs, and the database. The internal storage provides an environment for operation of the operating systems and the computer programs in the non-volatile storage medium. The network interface of the computer device is used to communicate with external client ends through a network connection. The computer programs are executed by the processor to implement functions or steps of a server-side in a method for dispatching UAV inspectors. In an embodiment, a computer device is provided, the computer device can be a client end, its internal structural diagram can be as shown in FIG. 5. The computer device includes a processor, a memory, a network interface, a display screen, and an input apparatus connected through a system bus. Among them, the processor of the computer device is used to provide calculation and control ability. The memory of the computer device includes non-volatile and/or volatile storage media, as well as internal storage. The non-volatile storage medium stores operating systems and computer programs. The internal storage provides an environment for operation of the operating systems and the computer programs in the non-volatile storage medium. The network interface of the computer device is used to communicate with external servers through a network connection. The computer programs are executed by the processor to implement functions or steps of a client-side in a method for dispatching UAV inspectors”.
Claims 6, 7, and 10-13 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 03/19/2026