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 .
The current application filed on Dec. 17, 2024 relates to a foreign application priority data IT102023000027717 filed on Dec. 21, 2023.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claimed Amendment and Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view new grounds of rejection. Examiner responds to the Applicant’s argument as the following reasons:
Regarding the Claimed Amendment: The amendment does not overcome the current rejections under 101.
Regarding the Claimed Rejection under 101:
At page 11 through page 13, Applicant submitted that the present amendments to claim 1 render claim 1 subject matter eligible under Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 for the features of “the alignment apparatus in the form of the first and second alignment device” which is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectably disagrees.
Examiner Response: Based on the current application’s specification, Fig.1 shown a system 100 for determining a geographical position of individual P. The system 100 comprises a magnetic compass B, an alignment apparatus which includes a first alignment device and a second alignment device, a sextant ST. Wherein the compass B, the alignment apparatus and the sextant ST for measuring the angle and direction of the Sun which involved with the person P. Also, a processing device PD configured to calculate a geographic position of the individual P based on the measurements of the Sun. However, the claimed invention and the current specification do not define how and what manner the magnetic compass provides the measurements which received by the processing device PD. The claims claim the processing device includes software for receiving measurements and calculating the individual P’s geographic location which all the mathematical concept which direct to an abstract idea. Thus, the 101 Rejection remains.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims:
Claim 1. A kit for determining the geographical position of an individual on the sea surface, the kit comprising: i) an alignment apparatus structured for being rigidly connected to a magnetic compass to align a lubber line of the magnetic compass in the direction of the Sun, wherein, the alignment apparatus comprises a first alignment device suitable for aligning the lubber line …and a second alignment device suitable for aligning of angles of elevation of the sun … wherein, when the lubber line of the magnetic compass is aligned in the direction of the Sun, an angle between the lubber line and the direction of the Magnetic North on a horizontal plane indicated by the magnetic indicator of the magnetic compass, represents a detection angle of the Sun;
ii) a software application executable by a processing device, the software application being programmed for receiving as input the detection angle of the Sun … and configured to, when executed by the processing device, cause the processing device to determine said geographical position as a function of: said detection angle of the Sun; and a date and time measurement of said detection angle of the Sun and of said angle of elevation of the Sun ….;
wherein the software application is configured to …cause the processing device to:
determine, for each of a plurality of attempt values …, a respective Sun azimuth ….
determine, for each Sun azimuth value …, a respective candidate geographic ….
….
Determine said geographic position as the candidate geographic …
Claim 10. A method comprising:
Providing the kit according to claim 1;
measuring the angle of elevation of the Sun;
choosing the first or the second alignment device of the kit …
rigidly connecting the alignment apparatus of the kit …
aligning the magnetic compass in the direction of the Sun …
measuring a detection angle of the Sun …
providing the measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun, … and
determining said geographical position as a function of said detection angle of the Sun, …; and said date and time of measurement performing the following steps:
determine, for each of a plurality of attempt values …, a respective Sun azimuth …;
determine, for each Sun azimuth value …, a respective candidate geographic …;
….
Determine said geographic position as the candidate geographic position …
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims (1 & 10) recite a Kit including at least one element and a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes, and mathematical concepts.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitation of claims 1 “a software application executable by a processing device, the software application being configured to …” performing the functions as shown bolded limitations above which, as drafted, are mental processes and simple mathematical concept but the recitation of “a software application executable by a processing device”. The mere nominal recitation of by the processing device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concept.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a processing device to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “A kit comprising: an alignment apparatus” which includes a first and second alignment device which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of “activities organized by a person” or “performed in the human mind such as imagination of “an alignment” between the magnetic compass (lubber line) aligned in the direction of the Sun), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the claim recites of “a software application executable by a processing device” which is generality of generic computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, the conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining said geographical position as a function of said detection angle, an angle of elevation of the Sun and the date and time measurement which were insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B.
The claims recite of “the kit comprises an alignment apparatus …” and “a software application executable by a processing device” are a well-understood, routing and conventional activities. Based on the current application’s specification which describes the system 100 as shown in Fig.1 that involves a person’s activities in order the magnetic compass providing the Sun’s angle measurements, then those measurements are input (by the person) into the processing device which has a generic software to calculating the person’s geographic location which directed to an abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
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 collection or receipt of data over a network 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),
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of a
Therefore, claim(s) 1-13 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang (20100312519) discloses an automatically identifying a geographic direction in responsive to a correction trigger event, the device’s geographic position is identified (see the summary).
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 NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
