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 § 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.
Step 1: Claim 8 recites “a method for..” which recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 1 recites “A system…” therefore is a machine. Claim 15 recites”A non-transitory computer-readable medium” therefore is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitations “analyzing” “creating” “determining”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting processor or a producer party, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “analyzing” “creating” and multiple “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “receiving” this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is a mere generic response of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The one or more hardware processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "receiving ” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner
Dependent claims are rejected for depending off independent claims.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: Newly amended claims overcome 101 rejection
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered and is not persuasive. Claims recite the concept of using an index and vector to determine and identifier. This recites an abstract idea as the steps of the claims can be performed in the mind. Newly amended subject matter adds more determining steps which are steps than can be performed in the mind as looking at features in an index and determining an identifier are steps that can be performed in the mind or on pen and paper.
Applicant’s argument: Newly amended claims overcome 112 rejection
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is persuasive and 112 rejection is withdrawn
Applicant’s argument: Newly amended claims overcome 103 rejection
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered and 103 rejection is withdrawn
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 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 ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153