This concerns application No 14/378346 (USPTO) https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair (dossier). It is facing 101 rejection . Can any one please point out what probably I had missed to make it allowable and what is the best course of action left for me. I am left with one month time to respond to Final OA. Already received two advisories. I am the inventor and, not an attorney. Thanks.

  • As an aside, your last response is really quite cogently written, which is notable for an independent inventor. I have seen much worse work product from actual paid attorneys.
    – Maca
    May 20, 2017 at 5:20

1 Answer 1


It seems to me that your claim basically comes down to: measure some data, calculate some other data, and show it to a user. While you are necessarily performing at least the measurements using hardware (though I understand it's all conventional hardware), there's nothing hardware specific about the approach itself. That is, any time you say "do X with a processor", that seemingly could be done by a person (albeit much more slowly) without any substantive change in the result. Because of this, it does seem to be at the level of an abstract invention, and so in my view there is nothing patently incorrect about the rejection.

It is a little difficult to see good options for you at this stage, at least without a detailed study of the description. But you may want to consider whether you can direct your claims to something much more tightly linked to the vehicle, rather than just displaying information. For example, if you were using this to automatically pilot an aircraft or something in a specific way based on the results (and not just a generic step of "controlling the vehicle based on the results"), that may help you.

  • What really baffles me is first advisory action mentions "some of the independent claims . . . particularly . . . .". My response is marked not to be entered. When I cancel relevant claims response is entered and advisory issued that I misunderstood . . . etc. Was there any procedural lapse on my part ? Thanks. May 20, 2017 at 5:59
  • @ADAdhikary No lapse on your part that I can see. You didn't seem to file amendments in that response anyway, so no amendments could have been entered.
    – Maca
    May 20, 2017 at 7:40
  • Seems CAFC judgement in Thales Visionix Inc vs US and Elbit Systems will bring some relief to 101 rejection affecteds. Sep 1, 2017 at 0:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .