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 the applicant’s arguments
The amendments do not appear to overcome the 102 rejection to Lauer.
Lauer discloses that the flight path and time period and from successive flights may not have service. This is from a server device that can record that there was no service on a previous or an ongoing flight. Then they can communicate a refund to a second subscriber. The second subscriber’s account can be then credited by 10 percent for the monthly account or if they are a one time purchase this can also be credited.
Lauer does provide an expected degradation event. The flight before may not have service so they infer that the next flight also will not have service as well on the ground. The flight that is traversing now from New York to Florida has no service so a credit is provided to the flight on the ground that is expected to have no service in FIG. 1.
The applicant also argues that no automatic refund is provided. This is not understood. The reference states that a ten percent discount for the month is provided based on the lack of service. This is a refund.
Also, the 101 rejection is also not overcome. This is an abstract idea of a human monitoring a flight to determine that from New York to Florida there is no internet service and can credit a passenger for the fee that they paid for the internet service. There is no sensor nor any elements aside from a general purpose computer. This is an abstract idea that does not recite significantly more than a general purpose computer .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Pub. No.: US20160127934A1 to Lauer.
In regard to claim 2, and 14, LAUER discloses “...2. (New) A communication service monitoring system comprising:
a first network communication device onboard a first vehicle and configured to establish respective network connections with one or more service access devices onboard the first vehicle for providing a communication service to the one or more service access devices, wherein the respective network connections are associated with respective payments for subscriptions to the
communication service for a travel segment; and (see abstract and claims 1-20)
control circuitry onboard the first vehicle configured to: cause the communication service monitoring system to:
receive, at the communication service monitoring system via the first network communication device
communication service data (see paragraph 29-33 where the flight can receive communication data that the entire network will be down for the duration of the entire flight and then credit the accounts of the users so they are not charged and or provided credits to the accounts) [[ from one or more network communication devices]],[[ wherein the communication service data]] is related to the communication service provided onboard the first vehicle, the communication service data including data collected during one or more trips of a fleet of one or more vehicles; (see paragraph 29-34)
“..[[determine, based at least in part on the communication service data]] determine, at the communication service monitoring system based at least in part on the received communication service data, a coverage area associated with performance degradation; (See paragraph 29-33 where based on the monitoring system the entire flight will have no network service and an account will be credited) [[ in response to receiving the communication service data,]] [[automatically]] detect, at the communication service monitoring system (see FIG. 1 where the server can based on the aircrafts that are traversing detect that a portion of the flight has no service and the server can provide a credit to the users that are yet to travel on the ground that according to this flight route there is no service and to credit their accounts and see paragraph 39-44) based at least in part on the communication service data and an expected path of the first vehicle for the travel segment, a time range of the travel segment when the first vehicle is expected to be positioned in the coverage area associated with the performance degradation (see paragraph 116-120 and 29-69 and claims 1-20) (see FIG. 1 where the server can based on the aircrafts that are traversing detect that a portion of the flight has no service and the server can provide a credit to the users that are yet to travel on the ground that according to this flight route there is no service and to credit their accounts and see paragraph 39-44)
“...…and an expected performance level of the communication service over the time range; and …..[[generate]] transmit, from the communication service monitoring system via
the first network communication device based at least in part on the expected performance level of the communication service over the detected, time range based at least in part on the expected performance level of the communication service over the time range, (see paragraph 29-43 and where along the path of the next flight there is no service at this time of the flight and later flights may have service however there is a credit provided to the user; and see paragraph 116-120 and 29-69 and claims 1-20) (see FIG. 1 where the server can based on the aircrafts that are traversing detect that a portion of the flight has no service and the server can provide a credit to the users that are yet to travel on the ground that according to this flight route there is no service and to credit their accounts and see paragraph 39-44)respective messages to the one or more service access devices comprising indications of automatic refunds of the respective payments for the subscriptions to the (see paragraph 144 where instead of an automatic refund the fees are discounted to ten percent) communication service for the travel segment”. (see abstract and paragraph 116-129 and 29-69 and claims 1-20)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Lauer and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200372477A1to ZHU filed in 2010 and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US11287817B1 to Urmson et al. and in view of NPL, VANDER VOORT, Optimizing Payment Network Routing by Refund Prediction (https://repository.tudelft.nl/file/File_e83fe128-2bcf-4a8e-82e0-6e4087fedd2d?preview=1) Web Information Systems Department of Software Technology Faculty EEMCS, Delft University of Technology Delft, the Netherlands
http://wis.ewi.tudelft.nl
In regard to claim 3 and 15, Zhu discloses “...3. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the first network communication device is a modem, a wireless access point, [[a satellite]], [[an on-ground server,]] or a server onboard the first vehicle (see paragraph 59-60)”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhu with the disclosure of Lauer with a reasonable expectation of success since Zhu teaches to provide for a vehicle that can communicate with a second vehicle for payments and get a payment authorization from a server and then open a channel that is secure between the two vehicles and paragraph 63-75, This can provide a secured authorization to communicate with the two vehicles in a secure manner. See paragraph 63-75.
In regard to claim 4 and 16, Lauer is silent but VanderVoort teaches “...…4. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the expected performance level comprises an expected failure of the one or more service access devices to present media content provided by the first network communication device over the detected time range”. (see paragraph 40-45 where a median level of the services are predicted to be non-fraudulent but a poor experience and are triggering a refund due to performance levels being poor and if it is above this level it is inferred to be fraudulent)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of Lauer with the teachings of VADERVOORT with a reasonable expectation of success since VANDERVOORT teaches tracking refunds that are legitimate refunds and also other refunds that are not legitimate for a compute device to process and provide for an automatic refund. This can be for goods or services and to understand the refund and if it is legitimate or not. Non-legitimate refunds can be analyzed further for increased scrutiny.
Claims 5-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Lauer and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200372477A1to ZHU filed in 2010 and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US11287817B1 to Urmson et al. and in view of NPL, VANDER VOORT, Optimizing Payment Network Routing by Refund Prediction (https://repository.tudelft.nl/file/File_e83fe128-2bcf-4a8e-82e0-6e4087fedd2d?preview=1) Web Information Systems Department of Software Technology Faculty EEMCS, Delft University of Technology Delft, the Netherlands http://wis.ewi.tudelft.nl and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP7153722B2 to Mx Technologies.
In regard to claim 6 and 17, Lauer is silent but MX Technologies teaches “...5. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the expected performance level comprises an expected communication failure between the one or more service access devices and the network communication device over the detected time range”. (see detailed description where the accounting software can include a false record of a charge associated with the non-proper working of the media components and this should not be charged or was charged incorrectly; In one embodiment, the enterprise transaction module 104a may comprise a distributed system 101, wherein the enterprise transaction module 104a and/or associated hardware devices 102 download data substantially independently and/or Do aggregating (e.g., download data in parallel or not with independent successes and/or failures of the components, without a global clock). Distributed enterprise transaction modules 104a can pass messages to each other and/or backend enterprise transaction modules 104b to coordinate distributed aggregation of data about entities and/or other users. In one embodiment, enterprise transaction module 104a is decentralized (e.g., entity or other A hardware device 102 associated with the user performs one or more aggregation functions, such as downloading data).
In a decentralized and/or decentralized system 100, 101, a central entity, such as the backend enterprise transaction module 104b and/or the backend server 110, in some embodiments still provides user credentials or the like. may be used to provide one or more enterprise transaction modules 104a with one or more messages comprising instructions for accessing the server 108 of the third party service provider 108. For example, the back-end enterprise transaction module 104b communicates with one or more enterprise transaction modules 104a of one or more hardware devices 102, which the enterprise transaction module 104a uses to access and download the user's data. a location (e.g., text box, field, label, coordinates, or the like) for entering the user's electronic credentials, instructions for submitting the user's electronic credentials (e.g., a button to press , a link to click on, or the like), one or more locations of data associated with the user (e.g., rows in a table or chart, columns in a table or chart, uniform resource locators (URLs) or other addresses). , coordinates, labels, or the like), and/or other instructions or information for accessing the server 108 of the third party service 108.
One or more enterprise transaction modules 104, in some embodiments, transfer downloaded and/or aggregated user data from servers 108 of one or more third-party service providers 108 to other An interface (e.g., an application programming interface (API)) may be provided. The interface, in one embodiment, comprises a private interface between the enterprise transaction module 104a of the user's hardware device 102 and one or more backend enterprise transaction modules 104b. For example, this means that even if the user's hardware device 102 that downloaded the data is turned off, out of battery, not connected to the data network 106, or the like, the backend enterprise transaction module 104b can provide users with access to downloaded and/or aggregated user data at multiple locations, on multiple hardware devices 102, through multiple channels, or the like. It is possible to In another embodiment, the interface comprises a public interface and/or an open interface, which may be secure, allowing the user to store, process, and store data downloaded from the enterprise transaction module 104. , and/or shared with one or more other tools, services, and/or other entities to do things for other uses. )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of LAUER with the teachings of MX with a reasonable expectation of success since MX teaches a backend accounting device can determine if there exist one or more transactions that are failed transactions and that should not be charged as the goods and services were not delivered. This can provided a remote accounting system that is a backend system that can provide tracking of failed transactions.
In regard to claim 6 and 18, Lauer is silent but MX Technologies teaches “...6. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the expected performance level comprises an expected data rate value of the communication service falling below a threshold data rate value over the detected time range.(see detailed description where the accounting software can include a false record of a charge associated with the non-proper working of the media components and this should not be charged or was charged incorrectly; In one embodiment, the enterprise transaction module 104a may comprise a distributed system 101, wherein the enterprise transaction module 104a and/or associated hardware devices 102 download data substantially independently and/or Do aggregating (e.g., download data in parallel or not with independent successes and/or failures of the components, without a global clock). Distributed enterprise transaction modules 104a can pass messages to each other and/or backend enterprise transaction modules 104b to coordinate distributed aggregation of data about entities and/or other users. In one embodiment, enterprise transaction module 104a is decentralized (e.g., entity or other A hardware device 102 associated with the user performs one or more aggregation functions, such as downloading data).
In a decentralized and/or decentralized system 100, 101, a central entity, such as the backend enterprise transaction module 104b and/or the backend server 110, in some embodiments still provides user credentials or the like. may be used to provide one or more enterprise transaction modules 104a with one or more messages comprising instructions for accessing the server 108 of the third party service provider 108. For example, the back-end enterprise transaction module 104b communicates with one or more enterprise transaction modules 104a of one or more hardware devices 102, which the enterprise transaction module 104a uses to access and download the user's data. a location (e.g., text box, field, label, coordinates, or the like) for entering the user's electronic credentials, instructions for submitting the user's electronic credentials (e.g., a button to press , a link to click on, or the like), one or more locations of data associated with the user (e.g., rows in a table or chart, columns in a table or chart, uniform resource locators (URLs) or other addresses). , coordinates, labels, or the like), and/or other instructions or information for accessing the server 108 of the third party service 108.
One or more enterprise transaction modules 104, in some embodiments, transfer downloaded and/or aggregated user data from servers 108 of one or more third-party service providers 108 to other An interface (e.g., an application programming interface (API)) may be provided. The interface, in one embodiment, comprises a private interface between the enterprise transaction module 104a of the user's hardware device 102 and one or more backend enterprise transaction modules 104b. For example, this means that even if the user's hardware device 102 that downloaded the data is turned off, out of battery, not connected to the data network 106, or the like, the backend enterprise transaction module 104b can provide users with access to downloaded and/or aggregated user data at multiple locations, on multiple hardware devices 102, through multiple channels, or the like. It is possible to In another embodiment, the interface comprises a public interface and/or an open interface, which may be secure, allowing the user to store, process, and store data downloaded from the enterprise transaction module 104. , and/or shared with one or more other tools, services, and/or other entities to do things for other uses.In some embodiments, the metadata module 202 may simulate a single removal of elements from a Bloom filter by maintaining a second Bloom filter containing the item being removed. However, false positives in the second filter can result in false negatives in the composite filter, which can be undesirable. In this approach, it may not be possible to re-add a previously removed item, as it may have to be removed from the "removed" filter. In some embodiments, the metadata module 202 may regenerate its filters when the false positive rate becomes too high.
Bloom filters may have spatial advantages over some other data structures representing sets in some embodiments. Linked structures can incur additional linear space overhead for pointers. In one embodiment, by contrast, a Bloom filter with an error rate of about 1% and an optimal value of k can use about 9.6 bits per element regardless of element size. is. In a further embodiment, adding about 4.8 bits per element can reduce the error rate by about 1/10 )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of LAUER with the teachings of MX with a reasonable expectation of success since MX teaches a backend accounting device can determine if there exist one or more transactions that are failed transactions and that should not be charged as the goods and services were not delivered. This can provided a remote accounting system that is a backend system that can provide tracking of failed transactions.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Lauer and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200372477A1to ZHU filed in 2010 and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US11287817B1 to Urmson et al. and in view of NPL, VANDER VOORT, Optimizing Payment Network Routing by Refund Prediction (https://repository.tudelft.nl/file/File_e83fe128-2bcf-4a8e-82e0-6e4087fedd2d?preview=1) Web Information Systems Department of Software Technology Faculty EEMCS, Delft University of Technology Delft, the Netherlands http://wis.ewi.tudelft.nl and in view of Hecker, Failure Prediction for Autonomous Driving, IEEE, (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8500495) Date of Conference: 26-30 June 2018 Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 21 October 2018, ISBN Information: Print on Demand(PoD) ISSN: 1931-0587
DOI: 10.1109/IVS.2018.8500495 Publisher: IEEE
In regard to claim 7 and 19, Lauer is silent but Hecker teaches “...7. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the expected performance level comprises an expected failure of the communication service to maintain a value associated with service level agreements for the subscriptions of the one or more service access devices over the detected time range”. (see page 5-8 where the vehicle is autonomous and includes a service device that is a neural network device and the neural network can monitor the autonomous vehicle via an expected level and if the level falls below a parameter this can predict a failure of the component of the autonomous vehicle via a communication between the neural network and the vehicle)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of Lauer with the teachings of HECKER with a reasonable expectation of success since HECKER teaches a neural network stored on a server can monitor parameters of the vehicle and the vehicle components and based on the historical feature vectors, the system can identify a failure with one or more components. For example, the steering parameters may not be received by the communication components from the server and this is a failure of the vehicle. This can provide a feature to stop operation for increased safety.
Claims 8-13 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Lauer and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200372477A1to ZHU filed in 2010 and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US11287817B1 to Urmson et al. and in view of NPL, VANDER VOORT, Optimizing Payment Network Routing by Refund Prediction (https://repository.tudelft.nl/file/File_e83fe128-2bcf-4a8e-82e0-6e4087fedd2d?preview=1) Web Information Systems Department of Software Technology Faculty EEMCS, Delft University of Technology Delft, the Netherlands http://wis.ewi.tudelft.nl and in view of Parra, Performance analysis of Vehicle-to-Vehicle communications for critical tasks in autonomous driving, Published in: 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC) (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8917302)
Date of Conference: 27-30 October 2019 Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 28 November 2019 ISBN Information: DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2019.8917302
Publisher: IEEE Conference Location: Auckland, New Zealand
In regard to claim 8 and 20, PARRA teaches “...8. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the expected performance level comprises an expected failure of the communication service to maintain one of more of a first data rate for a first percentage of the travel segment or a second data rate for a second percentage of the travel segment”. (see abstract where the device can include a first fast data rate to the server but in some instances when a bus is large vehicle surrounds the vehicle a second slower data rate can be provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of Lauer with the teachings of PARRA with a reasonable expectation of success since PARRA teaches a data rate can be strong. However, in some instances if the vehicle is caught behind or between two huge vehicles, the communication data rate can be slowed and then remedial action can be taken to use the sensors.
In regard to claim 9 and 21, PARRA teaches “..9. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the respective messages are transmitted via one or more of a mobile application, a web application, a text message, or an e-mail. (see abstract where the device can include a first fast data rate to the server but in some instances when a bus is large vehicle surrounds the vehicle a second slower data rate can be provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of Lauer with the teachings of PARRA with a reasonable expectation of success since PARRA teaches a data rate can be strong. However, in some instances if the vehicle is caught behind or between two huge vehicles, the communication data rate can be slowed and then remedial action can be taken to use the sensors.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Claim 11 is cancelled.
In regard to claim 12, and 22, Parra teaches “...12. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
establish a first network connection with a first service access device of the one or more service access devices; and
establish a second network connection with a second service access device of the one or more service access devices,
wherein: the second network connection has a higher priority level than the first network
connection; and
the expected performance level is associated with the first network connection. (see abstract where the device can include a first fast data rate to the server but in some instances when a bus is large vehicle surrounds the vehicle a second slower data rate can be provided) “.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of Lauer with the teachings of PARRA with a reasonable expectation of success since PARRA teaches a data rate can be strong. However, in some instances if the vehicle is caught behind or between two huge vehicles, the communication data rate can be slowed and then remedial action can be taken to use the sensors.
In regard to claim 13, and23, Parra teaches “...13. (New) The communication service monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the
communication service data is associated with a forward link for the communication service, a return link for the communication service, or a combination thereof. (see abstract where the device can include a first fast data rate to the server but in some instances when a bus is large vehicle surrounds the vehicle a second slower data rate can be provided for a forward or a return link) “
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of Lauer with the teachings of PARRA with a reasonable expectation of success since PARRA teaches a data rate can be strong. However, in some instances if the vehicle is caught behind or between two huge vehicles, the communication data rate can be slowed and then remedial action can be taken to use the sensors.
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 2-9, 12 to 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Step 1: Are the claims are directed to an article, machine, manufacturing an article or a process. Claims 2 and 14 are directed to a device to determine when the vehicle is not in a coverage area and then process a refund for a movie that is watched and are statutory.
This is a statutory class of subject matter.
Step 2: The claims recited an abstract idea. Abstract ideas can be grouped as a mathematical concept, a mental process, and certain methods of organizing human activity can be an abstract idea. The claims recite determining a first or a vehicle state and outputting a message when there is a difference in a state. This is an abstract idea. A human can determine that a vehicle is in a location where no movies can be downloaded and then determine that the billing is wrong based on a history of nothing works over this area of the Atlantic due to a loss of coverage.
Step 2a: Do the claims have an integration into a practical application, or an additional element or combination that imposes a meaningful limit of the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. These can include improvements to a technology, reducing or transforming an article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05c), applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond linking the use to a particular technological environment such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05€ and Vanda memorandum). Also limitations that are not indicative include adding the words apply it, or more mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity or a general linking or a field of use or a technological environment. The claims do not recite any practical application.
Step 2b is the combination of the steps unconventional? Limitations of an inventive concept include improvements to the functioning of a computer, applying using a machine with the judicial exception, reducing the article to a different thing, applying the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
Improvements can pertain to improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or a computer functionality.
Well understood, routine and conventional changes are excluded under step 2a. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Improvements can be found in McRo where animation tasks were held to be improvements v. Affinity labs. The feature that leads to the improvement must be in the claim.
A claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by implementing the exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b). A generic computer that is specifically programmed does not automatically overcome the exception and it must integrate the judicial exception.
A claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by using or applying the judicial exception beyond general linking the use to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the invention.
(For Example 37 of the USPTO Guidance: A method rearranging icons on a GUI by tracking the icons are selected or the amount of memory allocated to the icon, and then ranking the icons, and then placing those icons that are the most used next to or closest to the start icon of the computer based on the amount of use. Step 1 does this claim fall into a statutory category? Yes, the claim recites a method and a series of steps and is a process. Step 2A prong 1: is there a judicial exception recited and the specific limitations and if they are within the groupings of abstract ideas within the claim. Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, of a method of organizing human activity or a mental process or a process of a concept in the human mind. The nominal recitation of a processor does not take it out of the mental process grouping. Step 2A prong 2. Is the judicial exception or combination provided claimed in a manner that provides meaningful limits on the judicial exception that is more than an attempt to draft around the judicial exception. Are they integrated into a practical application of the improvement. Yes, as a whole the mental process is integrated into a practical application of the mental process. Therefore, the claim is eligible versus performing Step 2B as there is no inventive concept recited).
For example, Example 38, organizing patient records, Step 1: the claim is directed to a process and a series of steps; Step 2A it recites an abstract idea of organizing activity. Step 2A prong two: Is there any additional element or combination of elements that recite more than the judicial exception or is more than an attempt to draft around the judicial exception. The claims recite 1. Storing, 2. Remote access, 3. Converting by a content server, automatically generating a message, and transmitting data. This combination of additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the combination of elements recite an improvement over the prior art systems by allowing remote systems to share information in real time in a standardized format. Step 2A is no and the claim is eligible).
For example, example 38 claim 2 step 2a prong one the claims recite 1. Storing providing access and messaging. This is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite performance of claim limitations using generic computer components but does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity; this claim 2 recites an abstract idea; Step 2a, prong 2; are there any additional elements that apply on or rely on the judicial exception in a manner that provides meaningful limitations? The claims recite storing information on a memory in a network based storage devices. The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as the components are at a high level of generality. Step 2B are there elements or combination of elements that are more than the abstract of idea. The claims recite networked memory. This is implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. Step 2B is no the claim does not provide the inventive concept and is not significantly more than the abstract idea and the claim is not eligible).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only elements found are general purpose computers which is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
See Alice and Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016) that recites “the claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by claim 12 quoted above, is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. We need not define the outer limits of “abstract idea,” or at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea— and hence require stage-two analysis under § 101.
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”
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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights