DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Responsive to the Amendment June 29, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 were amended. Claims 4, 7, and 13 were canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 14-15 remain pending. presented. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues with substance:
Argument: Applicant respectfully submits that at least Applicant's independent claims 1 and 10, as presented herein, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. When considering claim 1 as a whole, as required, the claim sets forth an improvement to automated drone management technology. The improvement is a technical solution to a technical problem. The amendment to claims 1 and 10… is neither a mental process or a mathematical concept. For example, the human mind is not capable of obtaining the remaining amounts of energy of drones (and then generating or adjusting a usage plan accordingly). Further, the limitation above does not recite a mathematical concept. Therefore at least this limitation is an additional limitation that reflects the improvement to automated drone management technology.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to the concept of a generating a plan for optimizing usage for a plurality of moving objects, which is an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes. The limitations collectively amount to collecting data, analyzing the data using rules and mathematical relationships and adjusting a parameter based on the analysis. Courts have held similar subject matter abstract: See Alice Corp v CLS Bank International; Electric Power Group, LLC; Flook. In particular, Flook involved updating alarm limits based on calculations, which is analogous to adjusting a pressure set point based on runtime. The addition of a processor and computer readable mediums, which are generic and are being used in their ordinary capacity, amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not recite unconventional hardware, or a specific algorithmic improvement, or specific algorithmic structure beyond result oriented functional language.
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
Furthermore, regarding the argument that “the human mind is not capable of obtaining the remaining amounts of energy of drones (and then generating or adjusting a usage plan accordingly)”, the Examiner asserts that the step of obtaining, as argued, is not being claimed. Even if it was included in the claims as argued, the step of obtaining can be done by the human mind by observing data on a list or computer screen. Furthermore, if the step was being performed as argued by a computer/processor, it would be merely data gathering (pre-solution activity).
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that automated drone management is not a technical field. The limitations in the claims are directed to generating a plan for optimizing usage for a plurality of moving objects and is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Nothing in the claims seems to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in another technology or technical field. Nor do the claims solve a problem unique to the Internet. (This concept is not “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” see DDR Holdings, LLC vs Hotels.com et al (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 14-15 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 optimizing a usage plan for a plurality of moving objects. 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:
[Claim 1] A moving object operation management device that manages operation of a plurality of moving objects that carry an object to be transported, such as an article or a person, and move from a location of departure to a location of arrival, the moving object operation management device comprising:
one or more processor: and
one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums, connected to the one or more processors, storing instructions that when executed configure the one or more processors to:
calculates movement times of the moving objects;
calculate, based on uncertainty in the movement times calculated based on information that affects the operation of each of the plurality of moving objects, a probability that the plurality of moving objects occupy a take-off and landing port where the moving objects take off and land; and
generate a plan such that the take-off and landing port is occupied by the plurality of moving objects at all time increase the probability that the moving objects occupy the take-off and landing port, and cause the moving objects to preferentially use the take-off and landing port by limiting a time during which the moving objects use the take-off and landing port according to amounts of remaining energy of the moving objects.
The claim is directed to a moving object management device which is an apparatus, 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 optimizing a usage plan for a plurality of moving objects, which is an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes and mathematical concepts groupings. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
The limitations collectively amount to collecting data, analyzing the data using rules and mathematical relationships and adjusting a parameter based on the analysis. Courts have held similar subject matter abstract: See Alice Corp v CLS Bank International; Electric Power Group, LLC; Flook. In particular, Flook involved updating alarm limits based on calculations, which is analogous to adjusting a pressure set point based on runtime.
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 addition of a processor and computer readable mediums, which are generic and are being used in their ordinary capacity, amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not recite unconventional hardware, or a specific algorithmic improvement, or specific algorithmic structure beyond result oriented functional language.
The claim does 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 remaining claims are rejected under similar grounds and do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights