DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending for examination. Claim 2 was cancelled in claim amendments filed 05/06/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Change to “…wherein the pairing data list includes a plurality of sets of pairing data, each set of pairing data [[is]] associated with one paired first signal and one paired second signal corresponding to the one paired first signal; wherein the packet loss data list includes a plurality of sets of packet loss data, each set of packet loss data [[is]] associated with one first signal corresponding to one packet loss;…” (page 3/16).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 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 the limitation "the first signal that is not found to be preceded by the corresponding second signal" in page 2/16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Because Claims 3-13 depend upon Claim 1, Claims 3-13 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
…a device under test that receives an input signal and
generates a corresponding output signal, comprising:
loading, by an electronic device, a signal file to be analyzed,
in which a plurality of input signals and a plurality of output signals captured by a logic analyzer from the device under test are recorded;
performing, by the electronic device, a setting step, including setting a search condition for the input signals to be searched and a search condition for the output signals to be searched, and
respectively generating an input signal search condition and an output signal search condition accordingly;
performing, by the electronic device, a search step, including: searching among the plurality of output signals in the signal file to find a plurality of first signals that match the output signal search condition, and
searching among the plurality of input signals in the signal file to find a plurality of second signals that match the input signal search condition; and
performing, by the electronic device, a pairing analysis step, including: A1. when any of the plurality of first signals is found to be preceded by one corresponding second signal, recording a first time parameter between a first signal that is found to be preceded by the corresponding second signal and the corresponding second signal, thereby forming a plurality of first time parameters;
when any of the plurality of first signals is not found to be preceded by the corresponding second signal, recording the first signal that is not found to be preceded by the corresponding second signal as a packet loss and recording a second time parameter corresponding to the packet loss, thereby forming a plurality of second time parameters and a plurality of packet losses; and
A2. analyzing the plurality of first signals, the plurality of second signals, the plurality of first time parameters and the plurality of second time parameters to
generate a statistical result, a pairing data list and a packet loss data list;
the signal pairing analysis method further comprising: displaying, by the electronic device, the pairing data list, the packet loss data list, waveforms of the plurality of output signals in the signal file, and waveforms of the plurality of input signals in the signal file on a display interface of a display device;
wherein the pairing data list includes a plurality of sets of pairing data, each set of pairing data is associated with one paired first signal and one paired second signal corresponding to the one paired first signal;
wherein the packet loss data list includes a plurality of sets of packet loss data, each set of packet loss data is associated with one first signal corresponding to one packet loss;
wherein, in response to a user selecting one set of pairing data, the electronic device marks a position of the one paired first signal of the one set of pairing data on the waveforms of the plurality of output signals on the display interface and
marks a position of the one paired second signal of the one set of pairing data on the waveforms of the plurality of input signals on the display interface; and
wherein, in response to the user selecting one set of packet loss data, the electronic device marks a position of the one first signal of the one set of packet loss data on the waveforms of the plurality of output signals on the display interface.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘performing’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “performing” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses a person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
The ‘searching’ limitations in # 7 and 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
The ‘analyzing’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘receives’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generates’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘loading’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “loading” in the context of this claim encompasses generically loading instructions to apply the abstract idea of analyzing. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘…are recorded’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation (per, e.g., Fig. 5 of the instant drawings). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘recording’ limitations in # 9 and 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generate’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘displaying’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In # 14 above, the claimed pairing data list is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 15 above, the claimed packet loss data list is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The ‘marks’ limitations in # 16-18 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional element that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “marking” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a device under test, and
an electronic device.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16-18 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 3 recites:
in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, the corresponding second signal is searched to determine whether the corresponding second signal is present in a time period between two adjacent first signals;
when the corresponding second signal is present in the time period, each of the first time parameters recorded is a time interval between the corresponding second signal and the first signal that is positioned after the second signal in a time sequence; and
when the corresponding second signal is not present in the time period, each of the second time parameters recorded is a position of the first signal corresponding to the packet loss in the time sequence.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…is searched’ limitation in # 19 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 20 above, the claimed first time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 21 above, the claimed second time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 4 recites:
in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, an output packet loss is recorded and
a third time parameter corresponding to the output packet loss is recorded when two or more second signals are found in the time period.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 4 are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 3.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…is recorded’ limitations in # 22 and 23 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 22 and 23 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 5 recites:
step A1 of the pairing analysis step further includes searching whether one second signal is present in a predetermined time period before an earliest first signal among the plurality of first signals in the time sequence; and
when the one second signal is present in the predetermined time period before the earliest first signal, a time interval between the earliest first signal and the one second signal is recorded to form another first time parameter.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘searching’ limitation in # 24 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…is recorded’ limitation in # 25 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 25 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 6 recites:
in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, searching to determine whether the corresponding second signal is present in a predetermined time period before each of the first signals;
when the corresponding second signal is present in the predetermined time period, each of the first time parameters recorded is a time interval between the corresponding second signal and the first signal that is positioned after the corresponding second signal in a time sequence; and
when the corresponding second signal is not present in the predetermined time period, each of the second time parameters recorded is a position of the first signal corresponding to the packet loss in the time sequence.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘searching’ limitation in # 26 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 27 above, the claimed first time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 28 above, the claimed second time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 7 and 8 merely further describe the claimed time interval of Claims 3 and 6, respectively, as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 9 recites:
the setting step includes setting a start reference time point of the input signals to be searched and an end reference time point of the output signals to be searched; and
in step A1, the time interval is a time difference between the start reference time point and the end reference time point.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 29 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 30 above, the claimed time interval (per Claim 3) is merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 10 recites:
the setting step includes setting a start reference time point of the input signals to be searched and an end reference time point of the output signals to be searched; and
in step A1, the time interval is a time difference between the start reference time point and the end reference time point.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 31 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 32 above, the claimed time interval (per Claim 6) is merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 11 recites:
the setting step includes setting a plurality of pairing groups; wherein, in the setting step, the search condition for the input signals to be searched and the search condition for the output signals to be searched for each pairing group are set
to respectively generate the input signal search condition and the output signal search condition for each pairing group;
wherein, in the search step, based on the output signal search condition for each pairing group, the plurality of output signals in the signal file are searched to find the plurality of first signals that match the output signal search condition for each pairing group, and
based on the input signal search condition for each pairing group, the plurality of input signals in the signal file are searched to find the plurality of second signals that match the input signal search condition for each pairing group; and
wherein, in the pairing analysis step, step A1 and step A2 are performed for each pairing group to generate the statistical result for each pairing group.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 33 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
The ‘…are searched’ limitations in # 35 and 36 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…to…generate’ limitations in # 34 and 37 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 34 and 37 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 12 recites:
the setting step includes setting a tolerance time for the input signals to be searched;
the search step includes ignoring any input signals whose duration is less than the tolerance time.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 38 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
The ‘ignoring’ limitation in # 39 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “ignoring” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person not thinking about conditions associated with data.
Claim 13 recites:
the setting step includes setting a bouncing time for the input signals to be searched; and
wherein, in the search step, each of the second signals is one input signal whose duration is greater than the bouncing time and matches the input signal search condition.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 40 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 41 above, the claimed second signals (per Claim 1) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1 and 3-13 are patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of independent Claim 1 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
Claim 1: “…when any of the plurality of first signals is not found to be preceded by the corresponding second signal, recording the first signal that is not found to be preceded by the corresponding second signal as a packet loss and recording a second time parameter corresponding to the packet loss, thereby forming a plurality of second time parameters and a plurality of packet losses; and A2. analyzing the plurality of first signals, the plurality of second signals, the plurality of first time parameters and the plurality of second time parameters to generate a statistical result, a pairing data list and a packet loss data list;…”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, filed 05/06/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
Amended Claim 1 is not directed to a mere abstract idea, such as an organized human activity or a mental step. Instead, in the current application, an electronic device is used to analyze digital signals generated by a logic analyzer. The electronic device parses the digital signals to identify, from a signal file, first signals and second signals that satisfy specified conditions, and further calculates the time parameters between the first signals and the second signals. In other words, the subject matter recited in amended claim 1 does not merely perform a general function of searching textual information; rather, it is capable of identifying paired input signals and output signals among numerous digital signals, as well as identifying packet-loss events where pairing cannot be made.
Even if amended Claim 1 was considered to involve an abstract concept, it integrates such concept into a practical application. In addition to generating a statistical result, the method recited in Claim 1 also includes the features of generating a pairing data list and a packet loss data list. In response to a user selecting one set of pairing data in the pairing data list, the electronic device can "automatically link the display interface to mark positions of the first signal and the second signal," thereby precisely locating the corresponding waveform positions. Likewise, in response to a user selecting one set of packet loss data in the packet loss data list, the electronic device can "automatically link the display interface to mark position of the first signal at which packet loss occurs," thereby precisely locating the waveform position associated with the packet-loss event. This type of "automatic mapping between data and physical waveform display" constitutes a concrete technical implementation and thus a practical application.
[For Step 2B,] … These features [of Claim 1] address a specific technical problem encountered in logic-analyzer analysis – namely, that when a signal file contains numerous input/output signals and long waveforms, manually locating the relevant paired signals or packet-loss points by scrolling and visual inspection is time-consuming and error-prone. The ordered combination provides more than data analysis and generic display because it implements a specific, tool-level mechanism that bridges computed pairing/packet-loss determinations with automated, event-driven waveform localization on a display interface, thereby reducing manual signal hunting and improving the operation and usability of a waveform analysis system beyond what a general-purpose computer conventionally performs.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to A above, claims capable of identifying paired input signals and output signals among numerous digital signals, as well as identifying packet-loss events where pairing cannot be made, are still mental process steps. Identifying and/or analyzing signals (as claimed) are steps that a person could perform mentally in the form of observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
With regards to B above, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “automatically”) is not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Even assuming, arguendo, that the word “automatically” was claimed, the Examiner points to Example 46: Livestock Management – “Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the farmer used to perform (e.g., the mental inspection and evaluation of the livestock animals’ behavior), using the computer components as a tool. While this type of automation improves the daily life of farmers (by minimizing or eliminating the need for mentally evaluating the behavior of livestock animals), there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).”
In other words, mere use of the word “automatically” in the claims would not overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
With regards to C above, similar to B, the Examiner asserts that merely automating steps does not make a claim unconventional. One skilled in the art understands that computers conventionally perform many tasks automatically.
Additionally, applicant recites intended use of the claimed invention. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(2): “If the limitation … is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception… .”
For at least the reasoning provided above Claims 1 and 3-13 remain rejected.
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 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 JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights