DETAIL ACTION
1. This office action is also response to the RESPONSIVE TO RESTRICTION filed on January 27, 2026. As per request, Group I (claims 1-8) have been elected. Thus claims 9-15 are non-elected claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. NOTE: the following detailed rejection is made with respect to independent claim 1, directed toward a device, i.e. machine.
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 toward a machine. 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 in bold) and additional elements (emphasized in underline) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A flying object monitoring system comprising:
. a reception unit which receives flight information of a flying object;
. a calculation unit which calculates acceleration in each flight direction of the flying object from the flight information;
. a representation unit which represents the calculated acceleration with an acceleration distribution image formed by plotting the calculated acceleration with respect to the flight direction; and
. a determination unit which determines whether the flying object is malfunctioning based on the acceleration distribution image.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitute a “mental process” because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Claim 1 recites the metal process step of determining whether the flying object is malfunctioning based on the acceleration distribution image.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea without significant more. Claim 1 recites the steps of “calculates acceleration in each flight direction of the flying object from the flight information” is directed to the “Mathematical concepts” in group of abstract ideas. The group of “mathematical concept” as set forth in MPEP 2106/04(a) is not limited to formulas or equation, especially includes “mathematical relationship” and “mathematical calculation”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea with respect to step 2A, prong 1.
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.”
The claim recites the following additional elements:
. a reception unit which receives flight information of a flying object;
. a representation unit which represents the calculated acceleration with an acceleration distribution image formed by plotting the calculated acceleration with respect to the flight direction;
Regarding the additional limitations of “receives flight information of a flying object” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition limitation of “represents the calculated acceleration with an acceleration distribution image formed by plotting the calculated acceleration with respect to the flight direction” amounts to mere post solution outputting of the result of the mental process which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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, regarding the additional limitations of “receives flight information of a flying object”, and “represents the calculated acceleration … with respect to the flight direction”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities and these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN QUANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, can be reached at 570-270-7016.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
March 18, 2026
/TAN Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661