CTNF 18/937,026 CTNF 97292 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0010] or the PGPUB, in lines 3-4, there is a typo where “in the original data” is repeated twice. The paragraph begins “execute a search process including a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution for the feature amount included in the original data in the original data …,” and thus the duplication of the phrase should be deleted (emphasis added) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, in the second limitation, recites “the original data include , as a feature amount, data on an inclination angle of the vehicle at a time when a lock pawl is engaged with a parking gear in the parking lock mechanism” (emphasis added). The word “include” should likely be “include s ” instead, as “data” appears to be singular in this claim (i.e. a dataset). Then the phrase would read “the original data includes…data on an inclination angle….” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites that “the processing device is configured to execute a search process including a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution for the feature amount included in the original data in the original data ” (emphasis added). It is unclear what “a relative frequency distribution for the feature amount included in the original data in the original data” means, and the claim is thus indefinite. Examiner believes that the duplication of the phrase “in the original data” was a typo, and is thus interpreting the claim accordingly, as merely reciting “a relative frequency distribution for the feature amount included in the original data.” Claims 2-5 are rejected based at least on their dependence form a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below: STEP 1 : Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories ? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claim 1 recites: An information processing apparatus that acquires original data collected and prepared over a predefined period using a plurality of sensors mounted on a vehicle, and that calculates an index value indicating a magnitude of damage accumulated in a parking lock mechanism , the information processing apparatus comprising a processing device that executes a process, wherein: the original data include, as a feature amount, data on an inclination angle of the vehicle at a time when a lock pawl is engaged with a parking gear in the parking lock mechanism; and the processing device is configured to execute a search process including a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution for the feature amount included in the original data in the original data, a second step of setting a plurality of time windows for cutting data for a partial period of the original data such that a period obtained by totaling periods of all the time windows is shorter than a period of all of the original data, a third step of cutting data from the original data according to the time windows, a fourth step of calculating a relative frequency distribution in extracted data obtained by combining all the data cut according to the time windows, and a fifth step of calculating an error between the relative frequency distribution in the original data and the relative frequency distribution in the extracted data, the second step to the fifth step being executed, after the first step is executed, repeatedly while changing settings of the time windows to extract extracted data that render the error equal to or less than a threshold value, and calculate the index value using the extracted data that render the error equal to or less than the threshold value . The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of searching through data to first calculate a frequency distribution in the data, second set time windows within the data, third cut away data to look at only those time windows, fourth calculating a frequency distribution for the time windows, and fifth calculating an error between the two frequency distributions, and doing this repeatedly until the error between the frequency distributions falls below a threshold, before finally calculating index data using the suitable time windows. This is a process that could be in the human mind, or with pen and paper. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person having access to this data could perform these calculations mentally or with pen and paper. The Examiner notes that the does not preclude the original data from being a very small amount of data, which a human could feasibly use for calculations. Likewise, the claim does not indicate any immediacy or time constraint, such that a human could perform the calculations over as long a time period as necessary. The mere nominal recitation that the calculations are being executed by a processor is being does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 1 recites: An information processing apparatus that acquires original data collected and prepared over a predefined period using a plurality of sensors mounted on a vehicle, and that calculates an index value indicating a magnitude of damage accumulated in a parking lock mechanism , the information processing apparatus comprising a processing device that executes a process, wherein: the original data include, as a feature amount, data on an inclination angle of the vehicle at a time when a lock pawl is engaged with a parking gear in the parking lock mechanism; and the processing device is configured to execute a search process including a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution for the feature amount included in the original data in the original data, a second step of setting a plurality of time windows for cutting data for a partial period of the original data such that a period obtained by totaling periods of all the time windows is shorter than a period of all of the original data, a third step of cutting data from the original data according to the time windows, a fourth step of calculating a relative frequency distribution in extracted data obtained by combining all the data cut according to the time windows, and a fifth step of calculating an error between the relative frequency distribution in the original data and the relative frequency distribution in the extracted data, the second step to the fifth step being executed, after the first step is executed, repeatedly while changing settings of the time windows to extract extracted data that render the error equal to or less than a threshold value, and calculate the index value using the extracted data that render the error equal to or less than the threshold value. The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of selecting and transmitting are performed by a “processor”, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application. The acquiring original data steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps. The additional limitation of a plurality of sensors is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements: adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Calculation and processing of data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by computers. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the processing steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC , 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. , 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (as suggested by the “notification” in claim 4) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. CONCLUSION Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-5 do not overcome the eligibility rejection. They generally recite additions to the mental process, further describing calculation steps and qualifications, with the exception of claim 4, which describes post-solution activity. Examiner particularly notes that the notification described in claim 4 recites is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the calculation steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : JP2020523527 by Davis et al., teaching sensing of angle of parking of a vehicle and determining if a component has failed. JP2014119099 by Kamo teaching calculation of a deterioration of the parking mechanism due to the car parking on a hill. US20190112075 by Kalmar et al., monitoring helicopter component health. US20160093118 by Ahn et al., monitoring component health across a fleet of vehicles. US20220289164 by Ritter et al. for determining the cumulative damage to a brake system. US20220390012 by Silvestri et al. mentioning that parking on an incline causes parking pawl wear. US20210016786 by Griffiths et al. teaching prediction of vehicle health based on diagnostics. US20210074080 by Roberts et al., teaching monitoring of vehicle component lifecycle. US20190392255 by Franklin teaching user defined windows in data for modeling by machine learning. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm. 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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. /JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 10 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 11 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 12 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 13 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/937,026 Page 14 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights