DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 04/01/2025 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 4 and 5 have been amended. Claims 8-11 have been added. The rejection of claims 1-11 is hereby made non-final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are at least “a warehoused quantity acquiring unit”, “an issued quantity acquiring unit” , and “a stock quantity calculation unit”, in at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
9. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claim(s) 1-11 are directed to a system of tire stock management, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2A (prongs 1 and 2) - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
Limitation 1- acquiring a predicted quantity of tires to be warehoused;
Limitation 2- acquiring a predicted quantity of tires to be issued; and
Limitation 3- calculating a stock quantity of tires at the specific times;
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “the key question is ‘whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., No. 2016-2254 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) (referring to Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al., Appeal No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “In this regard, [examiners] must articulate with specificity what the claims are directed to.” Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that “[a]dding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 885 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Importantly, “[w]e [] assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]oundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018) citing Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 *2013).
Furthermore, “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). “The fact that an identifier [or utilization of the underlying abstract idea] can be used to make a process more efficient . . . does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.” Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1728 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017). Importantly, the CAFC “ha[s] held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’” Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity, Appeal No. 2017-1147 (Fed. Cir. 2017) citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1355.
Here, the examiner finds the claims are not directed to “an improvement to computer technology," such as found in Enfish, but to the abstract idea itself.1 Examiners have been instructed to refer to the body of case law precedent in order to identify abstract ideas by way of comparison to concepts already found to be abstract. Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following cases (and their associated judicial descriptor(s)) that relate to concepts similar to the claimed concepts:
Versata2(precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be using organizational and product group hierarchies to determine a price, where this was found to be a method of organizing human activity;
Downing3 (non-precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be the concept of personal management, resource planning, and forecasting including a “resource planning forecast product” that collects and analyzes “non-business or business information relative to the end user,” where this was found to be a method of organizing human activity; and
SAP Inc. v. InvestPic4 (precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis, where this was found to be a certain method of organizing human activity.
As indicated above, the claims are directed to similar concepts.5 Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea. Similar to the case law cited above, the examiner finds the abstract idea to include at least the judicial descriptor(s) of: certain methods of organizing human activity.6
Regarding preemption, the examiner notes that “[w]hile preemption may signal ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this [application], preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
“[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, ‘we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?’” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. “What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method” and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites “significantly more” than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). “If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.” Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. “As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo[] clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo].” Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, “[i]f a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two.” West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database’ . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement”; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any “additional elements” in the claims that constitute “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those “additional features” must be more than “well understood, routine, conventional activity.” See Alice. To note, “under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered . . . abstract idea[] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that “inventive concept” can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.”)(emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims ‘so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.’)”). Furthermore, “[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes “an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood:
Additional Element 1 – a warehoused quantity acquiring unit configured to perform the method outlined above;
Additional Element 2 – an issued quantity acquiring unit configured to perform the method outlined above;
Additional Element 3 – a stock quantity calculation unit configured to perform the method outlined above
In sum, the examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. InvestPic, “[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.” Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter. Claims 2-11 suffer from similar deficiencies as the claim from which they depend, and therefore fails to remedy the deficiency of the independent claims they depend therefrom.
Unless otherwise noted below, the dependent claims are directed to the identified abstract idea above. Similar to the independent claim(s) above, the examiner refers to generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood, and therefore fails to remedy the deficiency of the independent claims they depend therefrom.
For the reasons stated, the examiner does not find the claims to recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yokomizo et al (US 2024/0320625) in view of Toda (US 2022/0343695).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a tire stock management apparatus that calculates a stock quantity of tires during a specific time in future, the tire stock management apparatus comprising: a warehoused quantity acquiring unit configured to acquire a predicted quantity of tires to be warehoused in connection with the specific time (see at least paragraph [0008] to Yokomizo et al); an issued quantity acquiring unit configured to acquire a predicted quantity of tires to be issued in connection with the specific time (see at least paragraph [0028] to Yokomizo et al); and a stock quantity calculation unit configured to calculate a stock quantity of tires at the specific time (see at least paragraph [0039] to Yokomizo et al), based on the predicted quantity to be warehoused and the predicted quantity be issued, wherein the predicted quantity to be warehoused is calculated using warehouse data generated based on tire operation time data indicating a removal time, a usage time, and/or a delivery time of tires prior to the specific time (see at least paragraphs [0059] and [0060] to Yokomizo et al).
Yokomizo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the stock item is a tire. However, Toda discloses wherein the stock item is a tire (see at least paragraph [0036] to Toda).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method as disclosed by Yokomizo et al and the system and method as taught by Toda, in order to provide a more accurate method of tracking tire usage and inventory data, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warehouse data includes a warehouse prediction in which a predetermined time period set in advance is added to a time indicated by the tire operation time data (see at least paragraph [0041] to Toda).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the removal time of the tires prior to the specific time is predicted based on the time indicated by the tire operation time data, and the warehouse data is calculated by adding the predetermined time period set in advance to the removal time of the tires (see at least paragraph [0071] to Toda).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the time indicated by the tire operation time data includes the usage time of the tires prior to the specific time, and the predetermined time period is modified in accordance with a count of times the tires are used (see at least paragraph [0044] to Toda).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the specific time comprises a plurality of times including a first specific time and a second specific time (see at least paragraph [0055] to Yokomizo et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the warehouse data comprise first warehouse data generated based on data in the tire operation time data that indicate a removal time, a usage time, and/or a delivery time of tires prior to the first specific time, and second warehouse data generated based on data in the tire operation time data that indicate a removal time, a usage time, and/or a delivery time of tires prior to the second specific time (see at least paragraph [0039] to Yokomizo et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the predetermined time period used in the second warehouse data is shorter than the predetermined time period used in the first warehouse data (see at least paragraph [0039] to Yokomizo et al).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to The tire stock management apparatus according to wherein the time indicated by the tire operation time data includes the usage time of the tires prior to the specific time, and the predetermined time period is modified in accordance with a count of times the tires are used (see at least paragraph [0029] to Toda).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to The tire stock management apparatus according to wherein the specific time comprises a plurality of times including a first specific time and a second specific time (see at least paragraph [0035] to Toda).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the specific time comprises a plurality of times including a first specific time and a second specific time (see at least paragraph [0034] to Toda).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the tire stock management apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the specific time comprises a plurality of times including a first specific time and a second specific time (see at least paragraph [0047] to Toda).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 See Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016) (“The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independent abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”).
2 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(The court also stated that “[u]sing organizational and product group hierarchies to determine a price is an abstract idea that has no particular concrete or tangible form or application. It is a building block, a basic conceptual framework for organizing information.”).
3 Appeal No 2018-1795 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
4 Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 “[The examiner] need not define the outer limits of ‘abstract idea,’ or at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea—and hence require stage two analysis under § 101.” Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016).
6 As stated in the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.”
Prosecution Insights