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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the autonomous mobile device” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the claim as “the mobile device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s note: Claim will be reevaluated for interpretation once it is amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17, 18, 20-26, 28, 29 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 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 claims 1, 17 and 28 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 17 and 28 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claims 1 and 19 are a method and system respectively, and claim 28 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. And as such fall 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, claims 1, 17 and 28 are directed to mental processes.
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).
NOTE: Claims 1, 17 and 28 recite limitations that are similar in scope, hence examiner will assess method of claim 1.
The method of claim 1 contains a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. A human can determine that a lighting fixture is not working properly, based on its identifier find its location on a map and identify discrepancy between location identifier of another light.
Therefore, limitation of “determining,
mapping,
identifying, based on the location to which the first unique identifier is mapped, a discrepancy between the first unique identifier of the lighting control device installed in the load control system and a corresponding second unique identifier stored in memory for programming or controlling the lighting control device at the location in the area of the load control system; and
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do 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.
Claims 1, 17 and 28 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Also, 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.
The steps identified in step 2A prong 1 are performed by a computing device in claim 1 and control circuit in claims 17 and 28 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, “receiving, at the at least one computing device, a first unique identifier of the lighting control device from the lighting control device installed within an area of the load control system”, this is mere data gathering, hence an insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, ”resolving the discrepancy between the first unique identifier of the lighting control device and the corresponding second unique identifier stored in the memory by updating the lighting control device to include the second unique identifier or updating the memory to include the first unique identifier for programming or controlling the lighting control device at the location in the area of the load control system” is Storing and retrieving information in memory, hence an insignificant extra solution activity, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 See MPEP 210.05(d), (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do 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.
Claims 1, 17 and 28 not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Limitations identified as “apply it” in step 2A qualify as apply it in step 2B as well.
With respect to “receiving, at the at least one computing device, a first unique identifier of the lighting control device from the lighting control device installed within an area of the load control system”, and “”resolving the discrepancy between the first unique identifier of the lighting control device and the corresponding second unique identifier stored in the memory by updating the lighting control device to include the second unique identifier or updating the memory to include the first unique identifier for programming or controlling the lighting control device at the location in the area of the load control system”, this is receiving or transmitting data. And as such has been recognized as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 17 and 28 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1, 17 and 28 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 2, the claim further limits computing device to a mobile device. Therefore, is part of apply is and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 3, 18 and 29, “capturing an image using a camera of the mobile device, wherein the image includes the lighting fixture” is mere data gathering, hence an insignificant extra solution activity and well understood routine and conventional activity. And “determining, based on the image, a location and an orientation of the mobile device relative to the lighting fixture; automatically commissioning the lighting fixture based on the location and the orientation of the mobile device, wherein automatically commissioning the lighting fixture comprises automatically associating the first unique identifier with a respective floor plan identifier that identifies the location of the lighting fixture in the area of the load control system on a floor plan stored in the memory and is used for programming or controlling the load control system” is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 4, 19 and 30, “moving the autonomous mobile device to a position” is not a mental process. Therefore, the claims are statutory.
With respect to claims 5, 20 and 31, providing an alert indicating the discrepancy is considered an abstract idea if interpreted as “providing an alert through a display”, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Or, is considered sending or receiving data if interpreting transmitting an alert. In either case the limitation does not amount to a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 6, 21 and 32, the claims further limit providing alert to the user. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 7 and 22, prompting user to enter location is method of organizing human activity, hence an abstract idea. And determining location of lighting control device base don user input is a mental process. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 8, 23 and 33, displaying a floor plan of lighting fixtures is limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, hence an abstract idea. And receive an indication of one of the lighting fixtures in the floor plan is sending or receiving data, hence an insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 9 and 24, mapping the unique identifier of the lighting control device to a function is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the claims merely limit discrepancy indicating inability of lighting control device to perform a function. Therefore, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 10, the claim further limits function to comprise dimming the lighting load. As no acting control leading to dimming the lighting load is recited, the claim does not amount to a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 11, 25 and 34, the claims further limit how improper function of lighting fixture is determined. This is still a mental process hence part of the abstract idea and is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 12, 26 and 35, the claims further limit how a determination or improperly functioning lighting fixture is performed. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 13, receiving the first unique identifier is receiving data, hence an insignificant extra solution activity and is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 14, first unique identifier is received via visible light communication further limits how data gathering is performed. Hence is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 15, the claim further limits data gathering to identifier is received via radio frequency (RF) signals. Therefore is still part of insignificant data gathering and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 16, 27 and 36, transmitting a message … to control the lighting control device is an active control step and not a mental process. Therefore, the claims are statutory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 16, 19, 27, 30 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additionally, claim 30 requires corrective action to overcome the objection identified above.
State of Prior Art
Full search was performed in PE2E search and Google Patents/Scholar, and no art was found to teach all the limitations of claims 1, 17and 28, specifically:
resolve the discrepancy between the first unique identifier of the lighting control device and the corresponding second unique identifier stored in the memory by updating the lighting control device to include the second unique identifier or updating the memory to include the first unique identifier for programming or controlling the lighting control device at the location in the area of the load control system
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whitten (US 10239612 ) teaches of automatic commissioning of lighting system (see column 2) and determining a lighting system to be failing (see columns 9 and 19). The lighting systems have unique identification numbers (see column 1). However, does not teach the limitations identified above.
Chen (US 20170094750) teaches of light commissioning system (see abstract), and compensating error that were introduces during setting up the lighting system (see [0034-0035]). However, does not disclose nature of error. Therefore, does not disclose the above identified limitations, or provides motivation for modification to achieve the claimed invention.
Tiberi (US 20160381767) teaches of commissioning light devices (see abstract and [0001-0006]), however does not disclose the above identified limitations.
Jovicic (US 20160037293) teaches of updating identified of a light fixture (see [0060]), however does not disclose this to happen as a result of determining that a lighting system is working improperly. Furthermore, does not disclose the above identified limitations.
As none of the prior art teaches limitations identified above, claims 1, 17 and 28 are deemed novel. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance due to ineligibility under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656