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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is unclear whether the step of determining occurs as it is a conditional statement.
The statement/step “If not, determining a next snow shoveling position and performing a snow shoveling operation” is not a positive recitation and is unclear whether the step is accomplished or not.
Also, In claim 1, it is unclear how the steps of adjusting, determining are being performed.
In claim 11, the step of determination module has a conditional statement “whether it is still in the trigger condition for trap escaping” is unclear whether the step is performed or not.
In claims 2-7, 13-14, 18, the conditional statements of claims 2-7 are not clear whether the steps are performed.
In claim 12, it is unclear whether the conditional statements are met to achieve the result as set forth in claim 12. The conditional statement is not a positive recitation when it comes to the determining step and the “If not” statement.
In claim 16, it is unclear whether the conditional statements are met to achieve the result as set forth in claim 16. The conditional statement is not a positive recitation when it comes to the determining step and the “If not” statement.
In claim 17, it is unclear whether the conditional statements are met to achieve the result as set forth in claim 17. The conditional statement is not a positive recitation when it comes to the determining step and the “If not” statement.
In claim 19, the steps “determining”, and “if yes” are not positive recitation and are conditional statement. Therefore render the claim unclear as to whether the steps are performed.
Claims 8-10, 15,20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claim.
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.
Claim 1:
A trap escaping and snow removal method, comprising:
performing, when a snow sweeper detects that a current snow shoveling position is in a trigger condition for trap escaping, a corresponding preset trap escaping action, wherein the preset trap escaping action comprises following steps:
adjusting a head-up height of a snow shovel head of the snow sweeper at least once; determining, after finishing the preset trap escaping action, whether it is still in the trigger condition for trap escaping; and
if not, determining a next snow shoveling position and performing a snow shoveling operation.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a trap escaping and snow removal method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
Claim 1:
A trap escaping and snow removal method, comprising:
performing, when a snow sweeper detects that a current snow shoveling position is in a trigger condition for trap escaping, a corresponding preset trap escaping action, wherein the preset trap escaping action comprises following steps:
adjusting a head-up height of a snow shovel head of the snow sweeper at least once; determining, after finishing the preset trap escaping action, whether it is still in the trigger condition for trap escaping [mental process/step]; and
if not, determining a next snow shoveling position and performing a snow shoveling operation.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A trap escaping and snow removal method, comprising:
performing, when a snow sweeper detects that a current snow shoveling position is in a trigger condition for trap escaping, a corresponding preset trap escaping action, wherein the preset trap escaping action [pre-solution activity]comprises following steps:
adjusting a head-up height of a snow shovel head of the snow sweeper at least once; determining, after finishing the preset trap escaping action, whether it is still in the trigger condition for trap escaping [mental process/step]; and
if not, determining a next snow shoveling position [insignificant post-solution activity] and performing a snow shoveling operation [insignificant post-solution activity].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “adjusting a head-up height…,” “determining next snow shoveling position…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle controller (snow sweeper)” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller (snow sweeper) to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “adjusting a head-up…,” determining a next snow shoveling position… that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 are eligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith (U.S. Pub No. 20110198875) discloses that the present invention provide for snow shovels suitable for removing snow from uneven surfaces without inflicting damage to the underlying surface or jarring stops, while leaving a layer of protective snow with larger convex lower edges. The snow shovel includes an elongated handle attached to a scoop having a well for collecting snow and a front end for receiving snow. The front end defines an outwardly convex shape, such as a half-cylinder or a half-tear drop shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights