DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-25 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on April 3, 2025 has been acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Korea on June 4, 2024 and August 17, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0073093, KR10-2024-0073092, and KR10-2024-0110140 or PCT/KR2024/015584 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. While Applicant filed a copy of an application filed in Korea as a Document submitted with 371, dated April 3, 2025, this copy is not a certified copy of all required the foreign priority documents.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“an artificial intelligence inference unit configured to infer a user request” in claim 21;
“an artificial intelligence training module configured to find change patterns of categories” in claim 22;
“a terminal connection unit configured to allow a user or a user avatar … to receive a service” in claim 24; and
“the dedicated metaverse platform is configured to support one or more of a behavior recommendation service and an autonomous behavior service” in claim 25.
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. Further, Examiner notes, while the Specification discusses, in p. 48, ln. 25-28, “[t]he server 30 is a concept including an artificial intelligence inference unit 36 and an artificial intelligence ethics inspection unit 37, and also including the database block 42” and, in p. 59, ln. 3-6, “the server 30 is constructed in a metaverse platform environment according to the embodiment of the present invention,” these portions of the specification do not clearly set forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function because the specification does not require the server and the platform discussed are necessarily implemented by a particular computer structure and not merely software or software modules.
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 § 112, First Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “an artificial intelligence inference unit configured to infer a user request.” However, the specification do not expressly or inherently set forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
Claim 22 recites “an artificial intelligence training module configured to find change patterns of categories.” However, the specification do not expressly or inherently set forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
Claim 24 recites “a terminal connection unit configured to allow a user or a user avatar … to receive a service.” However, the specification do not expressly or inherently set forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
Claim 25 recites “the dedicated metaverse platform is configured to support one or more of a behavior recommendation service and an autonomous behavior service.” However, the specification do not expressly or inherently set forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, each claim limitation must be expressly or inherently supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 (emphasis added). “The 'written description' requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent's term. See MPEP 2163 (emphasis added).
For claims directed toward computer-implemented functions, like the presently claimed invention, “[i]f the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP 2161.01 (emphasis added). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the written description requirement requires that the specification explains how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function. Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 USC 112(a) - PowerPoint of Computer Based Training, Slides 20 & 21, (emphasis added) available at http://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/uspto_112a_ part1_17aug2015.pptx. The ability of one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how the function is to be performed are not disclosed. Id. at Slide 20.
With respect to the recitations “an artificial intelligence inference unit configured to infer a user request,” “an artificial intelligence training module configured to find change patterns of categories,” “a terminal connection unit configured to allow a user or a user avatar … to receive a service,” and “the dedicated metaverse platform is configured to support one or more of a behavior recommendation service and an autonomous behavior service,” nothing in the Specification expressly or inherently sets forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
While the Specification discusses, in p. 48, ln. 25-28, “[t]he server 30 is a concept including an artificial intelligence inference unit 36 and an artificial intelligence ethics inspection unit 37, and also including the database block 42” and, in p. 59, ln. 3-6, “the server 30 is constructed in a metaverse platform environment according to the embodiment of the present invention,” these portions of the specification do not clearly set forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function because the specification does not require ai inference unit, the server, and the platform discussed are necessarily implemented by a particular computer structure and not merely software or software modules.
Claims 22 & 23 depend on claim 21 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 25 depends on claim 24 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, this claim is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
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 1-25 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.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21, & 24 recite “a step for sequentially selecting one of 0 and 1 to combine the same,” then in the next limitation recite “combining the step … times and vertically arranging the step in chronological order,” and finally, “a situation category arrangement table in which …, and represent that the detailed situations are progressed according to a sequence of vertical arrangement of the steps belonging to each category.” In the first limitation referring to “a step” it is recited as if it is a functional step performed by the invention to select 0 or 1; however, in later limitations the claim refers to combining and arranging that step to ultimately be arranged in a table. It is unclear how a step performed by invention can then be combined and arranged in a table. For the purpose of examination, other than the first recitation of “a step” that is recited as if it is function performed by the invention, Examiner interprets the combining or arranging of the step to mean combining and arranging the 0 or 1 selected and combined in the step.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21, & 24 recite “a step for sequentially selecting one of 0 and 1 to combine the same.” In this limitation “the same” lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear what “combine the same” is combining. Is this combining two zeros when zero is selected, is this combining two ones when one is selected, or is this combining the step, etc.? For the purpose of Examination, Examiner interprets this to mean combining an initially selected 0 or 1 combined with a sequentially next selected 0 or 1.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21, & 24 recite “wherein the tool includes a situation category arrangement table in which … categories … are sequentially arranged with corresponding numbers in order to represent that the situations are sequentially progressed according to a sequence of category numbers, and represent that the detailed situations are progressed according to a sequence of vertical arrangement of the steps belonging to each category.” Here, it is unclear what “represent[s] that the detailed situations are progressed.” Does this mean “the tool,” “categories,” “situation category arrangement table,” or some other feature in the claims represents that the detailed situations are progressed? For the purpose of Examination, Examiner interprets this to mean “wherein the situation category arrangement table represents that the detailed situations are progressed.”
Claim 21 recites “an artificial intelligence inference unit configured to infer a user request.” These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholder “an artificial intelligence inference unit” coupled with functional language “configured to infer a user request …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim 22 recites “an artificial intelligence training module configured to find change patterns of categories.” These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholder “an artificial intelligence training module” coupled with functional language “configured to find change patterns of categories …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim 24 recites “a terminal connection unit configured to allow a user or a user avatar … to receive a service.” These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholder “a terminal connection unit” coupled with functional language “configured to allow a user or a user avatar … to receive a service …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim 25 recites “the dedicated metaverse platform is configured to support one or more of a behavior recommendation service and an autonomous behavior service.” These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholder “the dedicated metaverse platform” coupled with functional language “is configured to support one or more of a behavior recommendation service and an autonomous behavior service …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
With respect to the rejection and interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in claims 21-25, Applicant may: (a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
Claims 3-13 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 15-18 depend on claim 14 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 22 & 23 depend on claim 21 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 25 depends on claim 24 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, this claim is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se. Claims 1 and 2 recite “[a] tool for situation determination and change prediction, the tool comprising …” and “the tool includes a situation category arrangement table …,” and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the recited “tool” and “table” can include a software module performing the claimed limitations, and thus, these features recite software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. As a result, these claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 3-9 do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 1, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1, and similarly claims 2-25, in view of the first prong of Step 2A, recites “situation determination and change prediction, … comprising: 0 and 1 for expressing occurrence and change of situations in a binary format; a step for sequentially selecting one of 0 and 1 to combine the same;2N movements (N is a natural number of 2 or more) generated by combining the step N times and vertically arranging the step in chronological order; and 22N categories (N is a natural number of 2 or more) generated by arranging the 2N movements (N is a natural number of 2 or more) one by one at upper and lower sides in correspondence with each other, wherein the 22N categories (N is a natural number of 2 or more) classify and define situations that occur according to correspondence of upper movement and lower movement, and 2N steps constituting each category classify and define the detailed situations within the category, and wherein … includes a situation category arrangement table in which 22N categories (N is a natural number of 2 or more) are sequentially arranged with corresponding numbers in order to represent that the situations are sequentially progressed according to a sequence of category numbers, and represent that the detailed situations are progressed according to a sequence of vertical arrangement of the steps belonging to each category.” Claims 1-25, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of determining a situation and predicting a change by expressing occurrence of change in position using 0 and 1, sequentially selecting 0 or 1 N times to generate 2N movements arranged in chronological order, generating 22N categories by arranging the 2N movements for each of a corresponding upper side and lower side to classify and define detailed situations of upper and lower side movement, and sequentially arranging the 22N to represent that the situations are sequentially progressed according to a sequence of category numbers and a sequence of vertical arrangement of the steps of each category.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited expressing occurrence of change in position using 0 and 1, sequentially selecting 0 or 1 N times to generate 2N movements arranged in chronological order, generating 22N categories by arranging the 2N movements for each of a corresponding upper side and lower side to classify and define detailed situations of upper and lower side movement, and sequentially arranging the 22N categories to represent that the situations are sequentially progressed according to a sequence of category numbers and a sequence of vertical arrangement of the steps of each category could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making decisions to express occurrence of change in position using 0 and 1, a human using judgement and make a decision to select 0 or 1 to generate the movements, a human performing an evaluation and using judgement to arrange the movements for each side to generate categories classifying and defining situations of upper and lower parties, and a human performing an evaluation and using judgement to arrange the categories to represent that the situations are sequentially progressed according to a sequence of category numbers and vertical arrangement of the steps of each category in their mind/and or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental processes. In addition, the processing of expressing a change based as 1 or 0, generating 2N movements arranged in chronological order, generating 22N categories by arranging the 2N movements for upper and lower sides, and arranging 22N categories sequentially is a mathematical algorithm using mathematical relationships to generate and arrange a particular number of movements categories arranged based on numbers assigned thereto, and thus, the claims recite a mathematical concept. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 3-13, 15-18, 22, 23, & 25 recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the generic computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes and a mathematical concept, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] tool” in claim 1, “one or more machine learning models trained” in claim 2, and similarly claims 11 and 18, “devices correspond to a chemical injection system, a water flooding system, an artificial lift system, a metering system, a power generation system” in claim 1, 2, “at least one of a paper book form, an audio book form, an electronic document form including an e-book, an independently executable program form, and a real-time provision form through a network server including an Internet” in claim 9, “a device for creating extended reality (XR) including a device for creating augmented reality and a device for creating virtual reality, and a device for creating a metaverse environment” in claim 10, “a user terminal having a server equipped with artificial intelligence that pre-learns … artificial intelligence, an electronic device equipped …, a robot, and an extended reality (XR) device” in claim 11, “the electronic device, the robot, and the extended reality (XR) device” in claim 12, “the electronic device, the robot, and the extended reality (XR) device include an autonomous … unit” in claim 13, “[a] method … comprising,” “in a database of a server,” ”from a user terminal through a network, by the server,” “by the server,” and “to the user terminal … through the network” in claim 14, “the user terminal is at least one of voice information, a text, an electronic document, a video file, an image generated in real time, a video, voice information” in claim 16, “using an artificial intelligence … unit is performed under a control of the server“ in claim 18, “[a] method … comprising,” “in a metaverse platform,” “the service unit … the metaverse platform” in claim 19, “[a] method … comprising,” “a terminal that creates an extended reality (XR) environment,” “a terminal service unit … the extended reality (XR) environment created using the terminal” in claim 20, “[a] system … comprising,” “a database for storing,” “an artificial intelligence inference unit configured to,” “by artificial intelligence … the database,” “a server configured to … from a user terminal through a network,” “of the database,” “the artificial intelligence inference unit,” and “the user terminal” in claim 21, “the artificial intelligence inference unit includes an artificial intelligence training module” in claim 22, “the database includes a database” in claim 23, “[a] system … comprising,” “a dedicated metaverse platform,” “in a service unit,” and “a terminal connection unit … the metaverse platform” in claim 24, and “the dedicated metaverse platform is” in claim 25; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. In addition, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use/technological environment, namely a generic computing environment sending generic commands to generic devices. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 3-13, 15-18, 22, 23, & 25 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e., apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, namely a generic computing environment sending generic commands to generic devices, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, as an ordered combination, these elements, including the receiving and sending, amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations and receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 3-13, 15-18, 22, 23, & 25 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
While the claims are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 for the reasons above, they are novel and non-obvious in view of prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 rejections.
Examiner submits Huang, et al. (US 20070112886 A1), hereinafter Huang, Laftchiev, et al. (US 20210173377 A1), hereinafter Laftchiev, and Letham, et al., Sequential Event Prediction 93 Machine learning 357-380 (2013), hereinafter are the closest prior
Huang discloses identify changes needed to form the desired model and placing the changes in a data structure containing a set of elements (Abstract);
Laftchiev discloses using the event transition tables describing the normal sequence of events in the overall human-robot manufacturing process to anticipate an anomaly in the process based on the current state of the worker and the human-worker collaboration ([0012]); and
Letham discloses using a sequence database of past event sequences for sequential event prediction. Abstract.
While the above references teach some of the individual elements of the limitations of independent claims 1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21, & 24 when the individual elements are viewed in isolation, since of the since the specific ordered combination of claim elements recited in claims 1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21, & 24 cannot be found in the cited prior art and can only be found as recited in Applicant’s Specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references(s) to teach all the claim elements, including the aforementioned features not taught by the cited prior art, would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of Huang, Laftchiev, and Letham, and/or any other additional reference(s), would be improper to teach the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1-25 are novel and non-obvious in view of 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623