35 U.S.C. 101答辯筆記

101核駁意見重點：

2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance（https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-28282.pdf）。

Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.

Step 2A - prong 1: 

In Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.

Step 2A - prong 2:

In Prong Two, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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.

Step 2B:

If The Claim Is Directed To A Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether The Claim Provides An Inventive Concept.

以下為列舉實際35USC101核駁答辯的範例。

STEP 1: (發明涉及抽象概念，但屬於法定可保護類別)

STEP 2A - prong 1: (發明為組織人類活動，屬於抽象概念)

STEP 2A - prong 2: (發明僅描述通用元件，並未能整合抽象概念為具體應用)

STEP 2B: (申請專利範圍沒有包括可以實質超越法定例外的額外元件)

(發明沒有提供有意義限制的元件而轉換抽象為具體應用)

幾個針對以上不符101理由的答辯意見（僅針對特定案例的模擬範例）：

1. The applicant submits that the amended claim 1 is now directed to a system and amended claim 11 has been amended to incorporate clarifications that reflect the scope of an automatic method. (說明本次修正已經明確反映方法範圍) 

2. According to the amended claim 1, the system includes a data processing unit, a plurality of sensors and a user interface that are not for organizing human activity. (說明本案發明具有的具體元件，這些並非用於組織人類活動)

3. Applicant further submits that the amended claim 1 provides a solution that is able to train an intelligent model by learning the data generated by the sensors and performing a machine-learning method  through meaningful additional elements/specific-purpose devices recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions. (說明本案發明提供的方案是通過學習感測器產生的數據，以及通過有意義額外元件/特定目的裝置執行機器學習方法，係以超越專利性適格性的法定例外)

4. The sensors provides different functions in different groups in order to sense different kinds of environmental data. The technical correlation between the first and second groups of sensors forms the claim limitation that not falls within the subject matter grouping the abstract idea. (說明發明即便提出的是習知元件"感測器"，但是其中形成的數據之間的技術關聯並非落於抽象概念的組成)

5. The claim recites the additional elements such as the sensor and the user interface for receiving a warning notification generated by the user that are applied to the system in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (根據以上論述，發明引述的額外元件應用在特定領域的系統中係已以有意義的方式超越法定例外)

6. The data generated by the first and second groups of sensors and the timing generating the warning notification are particularly provided to be learned by a machine learning method performed by the data processing unit of the system so as to establish a warning prediction model. It is appreciated that those data are transformed into the warning prediction model that is provided for the system to determine whether or not a status of the user satisfies a condition of generating the warning notification. The applicant asserts that additional elements recited in the claim limitation are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (通過機器學習方法學習感測器產生的數據，數據"轉換"至提供給系統的警告預測模型以判斷是否滿足警報通知，其中證明額外元件足以超越法定例外)

7. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims now adequately reflect patent eligible subject matters that incorporate practical integration, whose patentability shall be determined substantially through novelty and non-obviousness analysis. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections is respectfully requested. (說明修正後專利範圍足以反映已經包括具體整合/應用的具有專利適格性的發明標的，其中可專利性更是通過新穎性與非顯而易見性的分析得出)

Ron