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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments and arguments are not persuasive over the previous 35 USC 101 rejections. Applicant’s specification states, “verification unit 710 and the fault signalling unit 720 may be implemented in hardware, software or a combination thereof.” Specification at 0072. In other words, the unit can be a software module that is solely acting on software and simulating a finite state machine. Further the specification states, “terms ‘module,’ ‘functionality,’ ‘component’, ‘element’, ‘unit’, ‘block’ and ‘logic’ may be used herein to generally represent software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof.” Specification at 0142. This would be implementing a mental process and mathematical concept on a computer without actually improving the computer itself. The method merely invokes a processing module. The processing module could be implemented by a software module. The examiner recommends adding to the claims that processing module, verification unit, and fault signalling unit are implemented in hardware.
Amendments and arguments are persuasive over the previous 35 USC 102 rejections and the rejections have been withdrawn. The prior arts do not teach the claimed method with the verification unit and fault signalling unit being separate units that each handle a specific function.
Note, a properly executed inventor’s oath or declaration has not been received for the following inventor: Christopher William Harkness Carville.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] computer-implemented method of identifying that a fault has occurred in a finite-state machine (FSM), the method being performed by a processing module comprising a verification unit and a fault signalling unit, the method comprising: determining, at the verification unit, whether a set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM is an allowable set of one or more transitions; and a t the fault signalling unit, in response to determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable, identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM.”
The limitation of “determining, whether a set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM is an allowable set of one or more transitions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “in response to determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable, identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions.”
The limitation of “wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein said determining comprises: comparing the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM with the data record comprising the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions; and determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable in response to said comparison.”
The limitation of “comparing the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM with the data record comprising the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable in response to said comparison,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein a first group comprises predefined allowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and a second group comprises predefined unallowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and the data record comprises the sets of the group comprising the fewest predefined sets out of the first and second groups.”
The limitation of “wherein a first group comprises predefined allowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and a second group comprises predefined unallowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and the data record comprises the sets of the group comprising the fewest predefined sets out of the first and second groups,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record.”
The limitation of “wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising recording the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM in a transition history.”
The limitation of “the method of claim 1,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “recording the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM in a transition history.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method of claim 6, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on the transition history.”
The limitation of “determining is performed in dependence on the transition history,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he method of claim 6, wherein the transition history is configured to record up to a maximum number of transitions.”
The limitation of “the method of claim 6,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “the transition history is configured to record up to a maximum number of transitions.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he method of claim 8, wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred does not exceed the maximum number.”
The limitation of “wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred does not exceed the maximum number,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he method of claim 8, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions and the maximum number of transitions is determined based on the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record.”
The limitation of “wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions and the maximum number of transitions is determined based on the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein said determining is performed in response to detecting that the number of transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record.”
The limitation of “wherein said determining is performed in response to detecting that the number of transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed while the FSM is active and responding to input data.”
The limitation of “wherein the method is performed while the FSM is active and responding to input data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM: replaying the FSM from a first state corresponding to a first transition in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred; and in response to determining that the same set of one or more transitions has occurred between states of the FSM, determining that the fault that has occurred is a stuck-at-fault.”
The limitation of “in response to identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM: replaying the FSM from a first state corresponding to a first transition in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred; and in response to determining that the same set of one or more transitions has occurred between states of the FSM, determining that the fault that has occurred is a stuck-at-fault,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “in response to determining that the same set of one or more transitions has occurred between states of the FSM, determining that the fault that has occurred is a stuck-at-fault,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” “unit,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-16 and 17-19 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Claim 20 is rejected based on similar rationale given to claim 1.
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 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 JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights