EXAMINER HIGHLIGHT§101 RECORD · 3 APPLICATIONS · 13 DOCUMENTS

Examiner Christopher Grant

Vehicle control, mobile apparatus routing, connected cooking devices. The recurring exit from §101 in this set is physical consequence: the claim stops predicting or displaying and starts actuating something.

Try TodaySchedule a DemoJump to the record ↓
JR3 drafting a §101 response for Examiner Christopher Grant
§101 matters reviewed3each carried an eligibility rejection of some kind
Allowance rate in set3/3all allowed after amendment
Dominant exitPhysical actuationthe claim must end by controlling something
Record confidenceModerateno Notice in the set gives detailed reasons for allowance
Read this first

None of the Notices of Allowance in this set give detailed reasons for allowance. The strongest causal signal is 16/100,921, where the applicant response records that the examiner indicated during an interview that the proposed amendments would appear to overcome the §101 rejection. Everything else is association.

Argument pattern matrix

Which eligibility moves appear where.

✓ Clearly present◐ Present, outcome link unclear— Not observed
Argument type14/789,41416/100,92117/610,384
Amendment adding physical actuation or device control✓✓◐
Overgeneralization traversal (Enfish / McRO)✓◐—
Amendment cleared at interview before filing—✓—
Non-transitory medium fix (MPEP §2106.03(I))◐—✓
Same amendment doing double duty under §102/§103✓—✓
Detailed reasons for allowance in the Notice———

Top allowance-associated §101 arguments

Move the claim from assessment to actuation.

01STRONGEST IN SET

One verb: from “assist in directly controlling” to “directly control”

App. 16/100,921Rejection: §101 abstract idea / mental processAllowed 2021-11-24

Applicant amended the independent claims to require activating an automated system configured to directly control a vehicle to change its movement when predicted ability or performance falls below a threshold. The same change was applied to claims 1, 21 and 24, and to withdrawn claim 15.

The amendment

“assist in directly controlling” → “directly control” the vehicle to change movement in response to determining that the ability to perform the task is below the threshold level.

Why it ranks first. The strategy moved the claims out of performance prediction and into concrete physical control: braking, steering, lane keeping, moving to the roadside, avoiding a collision. The response records that Examiner Grant indicated at interview that the amendments appeared to overcome §101. The subsequent Final Office Action allowed claims 1–5, 8–14 and 21–24.

Caveat. Strongest link in the set, but still not a formal reasons-for-allowance admission. The allowance action does not say the direct-control amendment caused it.

02MODERATE, MIXED

Information handling that ends in a cooking device

App. 14/789,414Rejection: §101; §103 over Hoare and Kuempel; §112Allowed 2021-05-26

The examiner characterized the claims as collecting information, analyzing it and displaying results. Applicant attacked that as overgeneralized under Enfish and McRO and argued the steps culminated in control of a cooking device, analogous to Diehr.

Amended claim language relied on

“causing at least one of a first set of at least two graphical prompts to be displayed by the communications device,” each including “an image or video of the food product after cooking” depicting a different gradation; receiving a selection; determining a parameter; and “sending the at least one food preparation parameter to a cooking device” configured to cook automatically.

Why it ranks. The same graphical-prompt limitation did double duty under §103: Hoare displayed textual lists, not images or videos of cooked-food gradations, and Kuempel's QR-code recipe retrieval did not cure the gap.

Caveat. The application carried §112, §101 and §103 issues, and a nonstatutory double-patenting rejection appeared after RCE. The documents do not show whether allowance came from the eligibility argument, a terminal disclaimer, or both.

03NARROW §101 ISSUE

Stored virtual markers, plus the non-transitory medium fix

App. 17/610,384Rejection: §101 carrier wave (claim 11); §102/§103 over NakayamaAllowed 2024-01-26

Claim 11 was rejected under §101 because its broadest reasonable interpretation covered a carrier wave. Applicant amended to specify a non-transitory medium, the standard MPEP §2106.03(I) fix. The substantive fight was elsewhere.

Amended claim language

“control the another mobile apparatus to move along a virtual route defined by virtual markers stored in the circuitry of the control apparatus.”

Why it is here. Applicant distinguished Nakayama, which controlled carts using visible features on a mat, by requiring route control from markers held in memory and seen by neither apparatus. It is the clearest substantive distinction in the record.

Caveat. Allowance may have depended on both the carrier-wave fix and the prior-art amendment. The Notice does not separate them.

The record

Every matter in the set.

16/100,921Performance prediction & assistive vehicle controlNOTICE OF ALLOWANCE 2021-11-24
Rejection basis
§101, claims directed to an abstract idea or mental process without significantly more.
Applicant strategy
Amend to require activating an automated system configured to directly control the vehicle to change movement when predicted ability falls below a threshold, and raise the amendment at interview before filing.
Subject matter & field
Assistive and autonomous control systems, particularly vehicle control driven by human performance or attention prediction.
Point of novelty
Not evaluating a mental state or predicting performance, but activating an automated system to directly control vehicle movement when the prediction crosses a threshold. That physical consequence supplied the significantly-more framing.
Caveat

The interview statement is recorded in the applicant's own response, not in an examiner-signed document.

14/789,414Customized cooking instructionNOTICE OF ALLOWANCE 2021-05-26
Rejection basis
§101 as collecting, analyzing and displaying information. §103 over Hoare in view of Kuempel. §112 indefiniteness and mixed statutory class. Nonstatutory double patenting after RCE.
Applicant strategy
Argued the characterization was overgeneralized and the steps ended in control of a cooking device. Amended “at least one food preparation parameter” to “at least one additional food preparation parameter” and converted claim 18 to processor-readable-medium instructions. Argued no motivation to modify Hoare's textual list into image gradations.
Subject matter & field
Food-preparation guidance, interface-assisted cooking control, automated cooking-device parameterization.
Point of novelty
Graphical selection of cooked-food outcome gradations, shown as images or video, used to determine and transmit preparation parameters to an automatic cooking device.
Caveat

The shared documents do not include the response to the double-patenting rejection or any terminal disclaimer, so that mechanism is unknown.

17/610,384Mobile apparatus control on a coordinate sheetNOTICE OF ALLOWANCE 2024-01-26
Rejection basis
§101 as to claim 11 only, on carrier-wave breadth. §102 and §103 over Nakayama.
Applicant strategy
Specify a non-transitory medium to moot the eligibility issue, then amend claim 1 to require control along a virtual route defined by markers stored in the control apparatus, distinguishing Nakayama's reliance on visible cues.
Subject matter & field
Camera-assisted mobile apparatus and game-vehicle control on a sheet bearing coordinate-indicating images.
Point of novelty
Route control using stored virtual markers rather than visible mat markings or features detected by the mobile apparatus itself.
Caveat

The Final Office Action after the response maintained the prior-art rejections. Allowance followed, but the final excerpts contain no detailed reasons.

Practice signals

What JR3 carries into your draft.

01

End the claim with an actuation. Prediction, assessment and display are where the rejection lives; controlling a vehicle or a cooking device is where it stops.

02

Watch the hedging verbs. “Assist in” and “facilitate” leave the claim in the abstract. Deleting the hedge is the whole amendment in 16/100,921.

03

Take the amendment to interview first. This examiner has told an applicant on the record that a proposed amendment would appear to overcome §101.

04

Look for an amendment that serves eligibility and prior art at once. The graphical-gradation limitation and the stored-virtual-marker limitation each did both jobs.

05

Do not expect the Notice to explain itself. None of the three in this set does, so record your own interview notes carefully.

Source documents

Thirteen files, read in full.

14/789,414Non-Final Office Action 2021-02-23Applicant ResponseNotice of Allowance 2021-05-26Highlight Excerpts
16/100,921Final Office Action 2021-09-09Applicant ResponseNotice of Allowance 2021-11-24Highlight Excerpts
17/610,384Final Office Action 2023-11-27Applicant ResponseNotice of Allowance 2024-01-26Highlight Excerpts

Also in the set: Argument Analysis Report. Applications 17/932,521 and 17/894,466 appear there with §101 rejections and later allowance, but the applicant responses are unavailable, so no extraction was made.

Draft your Grant response against this record.

JR3 takes these findings as configuration and writes the eligibility section in the register this examiner has accepted.

Try TodaySchedule a DemoAll examiner highlights

Examiner analyses are derived from public prosecution records and are provided for prosecution strategy. They are not legal advice and do not predict outcomes.