AIA
Claim 1-20, amended 7/9/26 examined; Effective date 03/17/2025, priority KR 10-2024-010662, filed 8/9/2024
Amended 1-20
Canceled none
New none
Inventor name
City
State/country
KIM, Hyun Bin
Seoul
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
LEE, Jung Min
Hwaseong-si
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
AHN, Sang Hyun
Seongnam-si
“The claims”, apriori, could only mean pending claims.
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
The claims (1-20): rejected under 35 USC 101.
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) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03)
The claims and dependents (1-20) are directed to statutory classes (1 machine 11 process). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04).
Additional elements – processor, memory, processor, sensor, configured to execute steps e.g. capture, analyze, detection, etc
PNG
media_image1.png
657
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
362
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)(EPG)
The pending claims: rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an abstract idea,
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here marketing via computer
PNG
media_image3.png
539
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Ser 19082090
EPG
PNG
media_image1.png
657
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
362
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Collect
info,
analyze
it,
display
certain
results
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Claim 2/11
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info (aggregate), analyzing it(analyze), displaying certain results for marketing
Claim 3/12
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info(collect), analyzing it, displaying certain results for marketing (generate..metadata)
Claim 4/13
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info (vision sensor), analyzing it, displaying certain results for marketing
Claim 5/14
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results for marketing
Claim 6/15
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results for marketing via generic elements (AI, processor)
Claim 7/16
Idea itself, collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results for marketing
Claim 8/17
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info, analyzing it (analyze), displaying certain results for marketing using generic element generally applied AI
Claim 9/18
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info, analyzing it, display certain results for marketing
Claim 10/19
Examiner
Idea itself, collecting info (object tracking technology), analyzing it, display certain results for marketing
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception (MPEP 210604)
The claim says one is to take the idea and “apply it” with generic elements generally applied
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application In particular, the claim only recites generic additional elements generally applied to perform data gathering, analysis. The additional element -- recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea The additional element is mere applying the idea on a computer See MPEP 2105, 2106
The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (eg generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The steps are computer-implemented, but one could do them with pen and paper, abacus, slide-rule etc The additional elements present only a particular technological environment
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610)
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (ie, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)) (MPEP 210605)
The additional elements present only a particular technological environment. The claim recites additional elements The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component See MPEP 2105605 Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible
Dependents of rejected claims are rejected.
Response to Remarks
Applicant amendment and remarks fully considered but not fully persuasive.
102, 103 withdrawn due to amendment
As to Applicant remarks
No abstract idea of mental steps or organizing human activity.
Examiner
Examiner agrees with applicant (not mental steps). Examiner had not asserted mental steps.
The claims are
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)(EPG)
The pending claims: rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an abstract idea,
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here marketing via computer
As to Applicant remarks
Integrated practical application
Examiner
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic additional elements generally applied to perform data gathering, analysis. The additional element -- recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea The additional element is mere applying the idea on a computer See MPEP 2105, 2106
As to Applicant remarks
2B
Examiner
There is neither a) an ordered combination nor b) technical improvement amounting to significantly more but rather a mere laundry list of steps representing computer implementation.
POC
Pertinent prior art cited but not relied upon
US 20180053228 measure engagement
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 BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights