Weatherbank, Inc.
[2018] APO 87
•5 December 2018
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Weatherbank, Inc. 2018 APO 87
Patent Application: 2016204930
Title:Interactive advisory system
Patent Applicant: Weatherbank, Inc.
Delegate: Dr W.E. Guinea
Decision Date: 5 December 2018
Hearing Date: Written submissions due to be filed until 21 September 2018
Catchwords: PATENTS – standard patent – Examiner objections – manner of manufacture – inventive step – substance of the invention resides in the sending of environmental information in real time from an environmental sensor, where the sensor is one of several present in different locations along a roadway or railway, to a user when it is determined that the user is within a spatial range of the environmental sensor – all claims lack a manner of manufacture – no patentable subject matter in application – inventive step not considered – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Spruson & Ferguson
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2016204930
Title:Interactive advisory system
Patent Applicant: Weatherbank, Inc.
Date of Decision: 5 December 2018
DECISION
None of the claims are for a manner of manufacture. There is no material within the application that would lead to a manner of manufacture if made the subject of a claim. The application is refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application 2016204930 (the “application”) was filed on 14 July 2016, and is a divisional application of application 2014213550 (the “parent application”) . Both the application and the parent application ultimately descend, via application 2012203381, from application 2006204945. Consequently the application claims an earliest priority date of 14 January 2005.
Weatherbank, Inc. (the “Applicant”) requested examination of the application on 31 August 2016. The first of three adverse examination reports issued on 2 June 2017. All of these reports objected to the claims as not being for a manner of manufacture and that the claims lack inventive step. Notably several examination reports also issued with respect to the parent application, with all these reports comprising manner of manufacture and inventive step objections.
On 30 May 2018 the Applicant wrote to the Commissioner requesting to be heard in relation to the outstanding objections.
On 7 June 2018 the Commissioner wrote to the Applicant indicating that the hearing would be conducted by way of written submissions due to be filed on 21 September 2018. The Applicant filed the only submissions in this regard on 31 August 2018 (the “Applicant’s submissions”). No further submissions were filed.
The Invention as Described
The application deals with systems and methods that allow meteorological information to be sent in substantially real time according to a number of user parameters. There are also various embodiments which utilise similar systems and methods as for the meteorological embodiments to allocate work tasks to employees. The nature of the invention as described is best understood by reference to figures 1, 3 and 4, all of which are reproduced below.
Figure 1 illustrates “an interactive weather advisory system” 8. The interactive weather advisory system 8 comprises a broadcast network 10. The broadcast network in turn comprises a user input database 14, a communicator location database 16, a weather analysis unit 12 and a communication network 20. The communication network 20 allows for communication with a plurality of remote communicator devices 11 via signal paths 34a, 34b, 34c. Each of the elements within the broadcast network communicate with each other via signal paths 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, while the weather analysis unit is in communication with a weather information database 21 via signal path 28.
The user input database 14 comprises a number of user defined parameters associated with each user of the weather advisory system 8. These include such things as a user profile, user identifier code (e.g. mobile phone number), spatial location identifiers, spatial range identifiers, weather content identifiers and time identifiers which allow for user defined weather information to be sent to a user. In an alternative embodiment the weather advisory system 8 creates a series of pre-defined user profiles based on certain activities. For example there may be a golfing profile.
Each of the remote communicator devices 11 is associated with a user and can be, for example, a mobile phone of the user. The location of each remote communicator device 11 is updated in real time in the communicator location database 16. The weather information database 21 comprises real time weather data for the spatial locations of each remote communication device 11 (from the communicator location database 16) and for any spatial locations identified for each user in the user input database 14.
The weather analysis unit 12 obtains information from the user input database 14, communicator location database 16 and the weather information database 21 so as to provide customised weather outputs to each user. For example a user might desire to be made aware of all thunderstorms (weather content identifier) within thirty kilometres (spatial range identifier) of Canberra (spatial location identifier) in real time (time identifier).
10. The weather analysis unit 12 is also able to provide marketing services to vendors 36a, 36b, 36c. The specification provides the example of a vendor who sells snow blowers. This vendor could ask the weather analysis unit 12 to identify locations expected to receive a certain amount of snow in the next week so as to better target their marketing efforts. The weather analysis unit 12 could also supply a list of user profiles that match these locations so as to send advertisements to these users.
11. An alternative advisory system 8a is shown on figure 3, which broadly relates to assigning work tasks to employees. An employer can create or modify an employee’s user profile 80a using an employer communicator device 11a and employer access 84a. The employee’s user profile can comprise any relevant characteristics about the employee, for example skills, location and personality traits. A location database 16a comprises the real time locations of the employer communicator device 11a and the employee communicator device 11b, while fixed locations are represented by 82a. An analysis unit 12a may then compare an employee’s user profile 80a against job assignment criteria, dynamic location 16a and fixed locations 82a. Where the comparison is favourable the analysis unit 12a creates a work assignment for the employee, which can be transmitted to the employee communicator device 11b via broadcast network 10a. For example the advisory system 8a could be used to select the most appropriate carrier to deliver goods in real time based upon their current location, the location of the item to be delivered and the delivery address.
12. Figure 4 illustrates a further embodiment that is similar to that of figure 1. The principal difference is that the advisory system 8b also comprises a series of individualised sensor networks 48a each having weather and environmental sensors 48b. The weather and environmental sensors 48b can be of any type, can be temporary or permanent in nature and could be placed on a vehicle. The use of the individualised sensor networks 48a allows for further weather information to be provided to the weather analysis unit 12b and ultimately to user’s communicator devices 11b. A number of potential uses for the advisory system 8b are outlined, including by farmers for sowing or fertilising crops. Another embodiment discusses a network of fixed and moving sensors associated with roadways for providing information on road and weather conditions to users.
The Claims
13. Several proposed amendments have been made to the application during the course of examination. After the latest proposed amendments the application comprises 11 claims. These claims are repeated below, noting that claims 1 and 5 are independent claims.
“1. A method of generating real-time weather and environmental information, the method comprising:
receiving a user profile, the user profile identifying a communicator device associated with a user;
receiving, by an analysis unit, environmental condition information from environmental sensors mounted in various fixed locations along a roadway or railway;
analyzing, by the analysis unit, the environmental condition information received from the sensors;
receiving a real-time spatial location of the communicator device determined using global positioning satellite technology or a mobile phone network;
determining a spatial range of at least one of the weather or environmental sensors;
determining if the communicator device is within the spatial range of the at least one weather or environmental sensor; and
outputting the environmental condition information received from the at least one weather or environmental sensor to a communication network for transmittal to the communicator device in response to a determination that the communicator device is within the spatial range of the at least one weather or environmental sensor.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the spatial range of the at least one weather or environmental sensor is determined based on a type of sensor data monitored by the at least one weather or environmental sensor.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the spatial range of the at least one weather or environmental sensor is determined based on a sensor type of the at least one weather or environmental sensor.
4 The method of claim 1, wherein the spatial range of the at least one weather or environmental sensor is determined based on a distance between the plurality of weather or environmental sensors.
5. A method comprising:
receiving a user profile, the user profile identifying a communicator device associatedwith a user;
receiving, by a weather analysis unit, weather or environmental condition information from weather and environmental sensors mounted in various fixed locations along a roadway or railway;
analyzing, by the weather analysis unit, the weather or environmental condition data
received from the sensors;
receiving a real-time spatial location of the communicator device determined using global positioning satellite technology or a mobile phone network;
determining if the communicator device is in proximity to the location of one or more
of the sensors; and
outputting the weather or environmental condition information received from the one or more weather or environmental sensors in proximity to the communicator device to a communication network for transmittal (sic) the communicator device in response to a determination that the communicator device is in proximity to the one or more weather or environmental sensors.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the weather or environmental sensors are approximately equidistant.
7. The method of claim 5, wherein at least one of the weather or environmental sensors is mounted on a billboard, a gas pump, a tower for cell phone communication, or a structure supporting a light.
8. The method of claim 5, wherein at least one of the weather or environmental sensors is mounted on a vehicle.
9. The method of claim 5, wherein at least one of the weather or environmental sensors is mounted on a billboard.
10. The method of claim 5, wherein at least one of the weather or environmental sensors is mounted on a gas pump at a gas station.
11. The method of claim 2, wherein at least one of the weather or environmental sensors is mounted on a tower for cell phone communication.”
The Remaining Objections
14. As noted the only objections outstanding are that the claims are not for a manner of manufacture and that the claims lack inventive step. I will briefly outline the nature of these objections below.
15. The objection that the claims are not for a manner of manufacture has been pursued throughout all three examination reports. The reasoning presented by the Examiner has varied across the reports in view of amendments made by the Applicant, however they may be summarised, in a general way, as alleging that the claimed invention is nothing more than a scheme for providing weather information and alerts according to user customised parameters. This is perhaps best illustrated by the following conclusion from the third examination report, given after the Examiner considered the facts of the case in view of the relevant authorities:
“In view of the above, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the contribution to the claimed invention is technical in nature such that it produces an improvement in the functioning of the computer, the communication network or the environmental sensors. The claimed invention as a matter of substance relates to the feature(s) of: receiving data (user profile, environmental conditions, and user’s device location) and outputting data. The contribution to the art, or the substance of the claimed invention, amounts using known technology for its known purpose to facilitate the scheme (plan, set of rule) of providing consumer customised reports, weather forecasts and warnings. Therefore, the claimed invention, as a matter of substance, does not define subject matter suitable for a patent.”
16. Similarly the inventive step objection in view of CA 2418268 (“D1”) has been maintained throughout all three reports, with other items of prior art falling away in view of proposed amendments to the claims. It is not entirely clear to me from the reports what feature(s) distinguish the claims from D1 as the reports read as though D1 should in fact destroy the novelty of at least the independent claims. It would seem from the Applicant’s submissions (see below) that D1 does not disclose “…determining a spatial range of at least one of the weather or environmental sensors”.
The Applicant’s Written Submissions
17. In relation to manner of manufacture the Applicant agrees with the Examiner in that established precedent makes it clear that business innovations as such are not patentable, while technological innovation is. However the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s assessment of the substance of the invention, arguing that the Examiner has taken “…too narrow a view (particularly in view of what was actually known in this technical field at the priority date as explained above)… What is being overlooked is that, at the priority date, the present invention provided a new and useful technological combination of features just like those inventions of CCOM, IBM and Welcome Real-Time.”
18. It is worth noting at this point that the Applicant has prefaced their remarks on manner of manufacture with an exposition on the technology as at the priority date. In these the Applicant argues that it would “…be unfair to judge the present application in accordance with our current smartphone technology”. The Applicant also makes several assertions on certain technological features not being common in 2005, such as GPS enabled mobile phones and individualised forecasting on a mobile phone based on its location.
19. The Applicant goes on to round out their contentions of patentability as follows:
“In summary, comparing the locations of location-aware devices with the locations of sensors in a sensor network and outputting sensor data to communicator devices based on the comparison is a technical solution, performed inside a computer (i.e. server), to the technical problem of collecting and disseminating sensor data that was not common, or even known, in 2005. The claimed invention provides a technical solution within the analysis unit (i.e., server).”
20. The Applicant also provided a list of “approved” or granted Australian patent applications said to be in the same technology as the application and thus supportive of the Applicant’s contentions.
21. In relation to inventive step the Applicant observes that novelty is not in contention as:
“It is accepted that D1 does not explicitly disclose the claimed features of ‘determining a spatial range of at least one of the weather or environmental sensors’ and ‘outputting the environmental condition information … for transmittal to a communicator device in response to a determination that the communicator device is within the spatial range of the at least one weather or environmental sensor’.” (emphasis in original)
In relation to this the Applicant suggests that “D1 does not disclose or suggest a spatial range of a sensor, because D1 does not describe a sensor.”
22. Ultimately the Applicant summarises their contentions on inventive step as follows:
“As discussed above in relation to manner of manufacture, systems of the present type were not at all known at the priority date and therefore were plainly not common general knowledge at that time. To re-iterate, it was not common for a server to store locations of weather/environmental sensors, receive weather/environmental information from those sensors, and output that information to devices proximate those locations in 2005.”
Relevant Legal Principles
Manner of Manufacture
23. The statutory basis for manner of manufacture is found at s18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (the “Act”) which states:
“an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.”
24. Fundamental principles with respect to manner of manufacture were outlined by the High Court in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67 (“NRDC”) at [14];102 CLR 252 at 275:
“It is therefore a mistake, and a mistake likely to lead to an incorrect conclusion, to treat the question whether a given process or product is within the definition as if that question could be restated in the form: ‘Is this a manner (or kind) of manufacture?’ It is a mistake which tends to limit one's thinking by reference to the idea of making tangible goods by hand or by machine, because ‘manufacture’ as a word of everyday speech generally conveys that idea. The right question is: ‘Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the “Statute of Monopolies’”
25. The NRDC decision related to a process for eradicating weeds from crop areas. A test applicable to the facts of this case was given in NRDC at [22], 275:
“The point is that a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art (see Re Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation's Application (1958) RPC 35, at p 36) - that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour.”
26. In Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120 (“Grant”) the court considered the patentability of what may be generally described as a business system or method directed towards protecting assets via the creation of a trust, this not involving any computer implementation. Their Honours in Grant (at [26]) did not consider the question as to whether a business system is or is not patentable. Rather they found (at [47]) Mr Grant’s claimed systems and methods were not for a manner of manufacture in the sense described in NRDC:
“It has long been accepted that ‘intellectual information’, a mathematical algorithm, mere working directions and a scheme without effect are not patentable. This claim is ‘intellectual information’, mere working directions and a scheme. It is necessary that there be some ‘useful product’, some physical phenomenon or effect resulting from the working of a method for it to be properly the subject of letters patent. That is missing in this case.”
27. More recently the authorities have directly considered the patentability, or otherwise, of computer implemented business methods, most notably in Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (“Research Affiliates”) and Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty. Ltd. [2015] FCAFC 177 (“RPL”). The discussion in RPL referred to the terminology from NRDC, with the observation at [117] that such terminology was apposite but “…not conclusive of patentability”. This observation was given with respect to consideration of a similar conclusion by the majority in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc. [2015] HCA 35 (“D’Arcy”) at [23]:
“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications. Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology. Consistently with that approach, and without resort to the ‘generally inconvenient’ proviso in s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, there may be cases in which the court will decide that the implications of patentability of a new class of inventionare such that the invention as claimed should not be treated as patentable by judicial decision”.
28. It was in this light that their Honours, at [96] to [98] of RPL, outlined considerations useful in determining whether a computer implemented business method is patentable:
“A claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology. The basis for the analysis starts with the fact that a business method, or mere scheme, is not, per se, patentable. The fact that it is a scheme or business method does not exclude it from properly being the subject of letters patent, but it must be more than that. There must be more than an abstract idea; it must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed. Where the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation. It is not a patentable invention simply to ‘put’ a business method ‘into’ a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well- known and understood functions.
Is the mere implementation of an abstract idea in a well-known machine sufficient to render patentable subject matter? Is the artificial effect that arises, because information is stored in RAM and there is communication over the Internet or wifi, sufficient? Does any physical effect give rise to a manner of manufacture? Are the mere presence of an artificial effect and economic utility, without more, sufficient to determine manner of manufacture?
It is not a question of stating precise guidelines but of deciding, in each case, whether the claimed invention, as a matter of substance not form, is properly the subject of a patent.”
29. Thus in relation to so-called business related inventions, it is necessary to look at the invention as a matter of substance, rather than as a matter of form. Upon doing so one will then be able to ascertain if this substance provides for a manner of manufacture using the established authorities. Relevantly RPL and Research Affiliates provided principles that assist in determining where the substance of these types of inventions resides and whether that material is patentable. In particular at [99] to [107] of RPL, their Honours reiterated a series of these principles from Research Affiliates (in particular at [94]).
30. Conveniently these principles have been summarised by the Delegate in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. [2016] APO 49 at [35], which I repeat below:
“I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters. Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:
·there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;
·is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;
·does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;
·does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;
·does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;
·can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;
·does the method merely require generic computer implementation;
·is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;
·is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;
·does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers; and
·does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.”
31. I note that there appears to be no dispute as to the legal principles involved. Rather the area of disagreement is the substance of the invention and its characterisation.
Inventive Step
32. As the application has been refused as lacking any material that could comprise a manner of manufacture if so claimed, I do not consider it necessary to herein outline relevant legal principles with respect to inventive step.
Stringency of Tests
33. As examination was requested after 15 April 2013, the substantive amendments of the Act brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 apply to the present application. In particular the amendments to s49 of the Act allow the Commissioner to refuse an application if she is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the invention, so far as claimed, satisfies the criteria of s18(1)(a). Notably the criteria outlined at s18(1)(a) is that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim “is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies”.
Do the Claims Comprise a Manner of Manufacture?
34. I will initially consider this question with regard to the independent claims (claims 1 and 5), and will afterwards consider the dependent claims.
Claim 1
35. It is perhaps trite, but the fundamental question I need answer is what does the claimed invention comprise as a matter of substance? To assist in answering that question I note that claim 1 can be summarised as follows:
· receiving a user profile that comprises associating a communicator device with a user;
· having a network of environmental sensors at different fixed locations along a roadway or railway;
· sending environmental condition information from the environmental sensors to an analysis unit which analyses the environmental condition information;
· receiving real time spatial location of the communicator device using GPS or a mobile phone network;
· determining if the communicator device is within the spatial range of at least one of the environmental sensors; and
· if the communicator device is within a the spatial range of at least one of the environmental sensors, sending the environmental condition information from the at least one environmental condition sensor to the communicator device using a communication network.
36. It can be seen that the technological aspects of the claim are specified to a high degree of generality, such that the precise details of their implementation and abilities in a technological sense are not important so long as they serve the purpose of the claim. For example the “communicator device” could be any such device known in the art at the priority date; the claim language is perhaps most suggestive of a mobile phone, although it could comprise a landline telephone or RF communication devices. Similarly the environmental sensors are not specified in any way and could, for example, be temperature, humidity, air pressure or other environmental sensors as known in the art. The reference to GPS and mobile phone networks as such, with no further degree of specificity, would be understood by the skilled addressee as referring to these as generally known in the art as at the priority date. The communication network could be any such network as known in the art as at the priority date; the claim language is most suggestive of a mobile phone network, but could be a landline telephone network. The analysis unit would be best understood as any known computerised device suitably programmed to meet the purposes of the claim, however it could be something other than a computer as well.
37. The remaining technical aspects of the claim relate to receiving the real time spatial location of the communicator device and determining whether it is within the spatial range of the environmental sensor, by using GPS or a mobile phone network. At the level of generality of the claim these features amount to nothing more than a direction to the skilled addressee to “keep track of the location of the communicator device in real time and determine whether it is within the spatial range of an environmental sensor by using GPS or a mobile phone network” i.e. using means and techniques known in the art.
38. The lack of technical detail in the claims (and in the application as a whole) is indicative that the technology as used in the invention as claimed goes no more than to that routinely used and known before the priority date. Indeed this is supported by the description in various places where the technical aspects of the invention are discussed and it is apparent that all that is required is existing technology which can be used in a routine fashion to achieve the objectives of the invention:
“[0026] Particular users can input the user-defined parameters into the user input database 14 via any suitable method. For example, the user input database 14 is desirably configured to acquire its data from a variety of optional sources preferably chosen by the user, such as verbally through a telephone customer service network, a mobile phone network equipped with wireless application protocol technology, email, a personal digital assistant, a laptop computer, or an interactive web site. Furthermore, users could mail the user-defined parameters to the broadcast network 10, and an individual at the broadcast network 10 could input the user defined parameters directly into the user input database 14 via a keyboard or other similar input device. In one embodiment, the user inputs the selected information into the user input database 14 via the user's communicator device 11.
[0027]...The real-time weather data could also be either input directly at the physical location of the weather information database 21 or input via a mobile phone network, a mobile phone network with wireless application protocol, the Internet, aircraft communication systems, email, a personal digital assistant, a laptop computer, regular computer, or other wireless devices.
[0028]…The communicator location database 16 desirably receives data from the communicator devices 11 identified by the user identifier codes via at least one of a variety of possible resources such as a mobile phone network, a mobile phone network equipped with the wireless application protocol technology, global positioning satellite technology, the Internet, loran technology, radar technology, transponder technology or any other type of technology capable of tracking the spatial location of a communicator device 11 and communicating the location of such communicator device 11 to the communicator location database 16 of the broadcast network 10. Preferably, the communicator location database 16 is continuously and automatically updated as to the location of each of the communicator devices 11, such as by the wireless application protocol technology.
[0029] The communication network 20 can be, by way of example but not limitation, a mobile phone network, a mobile phone network with wireless application protocol technology, the Internet, a facsimile network, a satellite network (one or two-way), a RF radio network, or any other means of transmitting information from a source to an end user.
[0030] The communicator devices 11 can be bidirectional or unidirectional communicator devices. The communicator devices 11 can be, by way of example but not limitation, a portable device, such as a mobile telephone, a smart phone, a pager, a laptop computer or a personal digital assistant, or any other electronic device capable of receiving weather information data. Furthermore, the communicator device 11 can be incorporated into an object that is utilized or accessible by the user, such as a helmet, an automobile, or an airplane, for example. While only three communicator devices 11 are represented in FIG. 1 for purposes of illustration, the interactive weather advisory system 8 contemplates the utilization of a large number of communicator devices 11.
[0031]…The weather analysis unit 12 can be, by way of example but not limitation, a computer desirably programmed to automatically and continuously compare the data in the user input database 14, communicator location database 16, and weather information database 21 so as to generate an individualized weather output signal including weather information within the spatial range identified by the spatial range identifier for each user-defined parameter in the user input database 14. The weather output signals are transmitted to the communication network 20 via the signal path 32.
[0032] The weather analysis unit 12 gathers the real-time weather data from the weather information database 21. The term ‘real-time weather data’, as used herein, refers to weather data which is continually updated so as to indicate current or near current information. In some instances, the ‘real-time weather data’ may be delayed by relatively small increments of five minutes, 15 minutes, or 30 minutes, for example. In other instances, the ‘real-time weather data’ can be provided with substantially no delay. It is expected that the increments will become smaller as communication networks and weather related technology become faster.
[0035] The signal paths 34a, 34b and 34c refer to any suitable communication link which permits electronic communications. For example, the signal paths 34a, 34b and 34c can be point-to-point shared and dedicated communications, infrared links, microwave links, telephone links, CATV links, satellite and radio links and fiber optic links.
[0036]…The user, for example, through his smart phone (communicator device 11) in his vehicle working in conjunction with a mobile phone network (communication network 20) with wireless application protocol, inputs selected information into the user input database 14; namely, the user's smart phone number (user identifier code), hail (weather content identifier), 2.5 mile radius (spatial range identifier 24) and spatial location dynamic (spatial location of the user's smart phone is then automatically and continuously monitored), and the like.
[0039]…To provide a suitable level of comfort and safety, the user may wish to be informed of icing conditions within 10 miles of the dynamic spatial location of his aircraft. The user, for example, through his smart phone or other suitable avionic device (communicator device 11) in his aircraft working in conjunction with a mobile phone network (communication network 20) with wireless application protocol, inputs selected information into the user input database 14; namely, the user's smart phone number (user identifier code), icing (weather content identifier), 10 mile radius (spatial range identifier 24), and the spatial location dynamic. The spatial location of the user's smart phone or other suitable avionic device is then automatically and continuously monitored as the aircraft traverses through time and space from (X1, Y1, Z1, T1) to (X4, Y4, Z4, T4). The interactive weather analysis unit 12 then monitors the real-time weather data in the weather information database 21 and the predicted events in the weather analysis unit 12 so as to transmit the individualized weather output signal to the user's smart phone or other avionic device identifying, if icing is detected or is highly likely to form relevant to a 10 mile radius of the aircraft.
[0042] The signal paths 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 can be logical and/or physical links between various software and/or hardware utilized to implement the present invention. It should be understood that each of the signal paths 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 are shown and described separately herein for the sole purpose of clearly illustrating the information and logic being communicated between the individual components of the present invention. In operation, the signal paths may not be separate signal paths but may be a single signal path. In addition, the various information does not necessarily have to flow between the components of the present invention in the manner shown in FIG. 1. For example, although FIG. 1 illustrates the user identifier code being transmitted directly from the user input database 14 to the communication network 20 via the signal path 30, the user identifier code can be communicated to the weather analysis unit 12 via the signal path 24 and then communicated to the communication network 20 via the signal path 32.
[0071] Further, the system 8b may be used to transmit real-time road condition information to the weather analysis unit 12b to enhance the weather information transmitted to the users of the system 8b. Although the sensors 48b can include their own power source such as a battery or solar power source, the sensors 48b are preferably positioned on a device which has its own electrical power source. For example, a temporary or permanent sensor or sensors 48b may be placed in various locations along a roadway such as on a vehicle, on or beside the roadway, on a billboard, gas pump, cell phone tower or sign alongside the roadway or railway, on a delivery vehicle(s) such as, for example, UPS and/or FedEx, or on the streetlights. If the sensor 48b is placed on the roadway, it may be placed in the concrete or asphalt. If placed beside the roadway, the sensor 48b may be placed in, for example, a ditch. The sensor(s) 48b may detect, for example, moisture, temperature or any other weather or environmental condition associated with the roadway, sign alongside the roadway, on streetlights, or on delivery vehicles such as, for example, UPS and/or FedEx, or on railway cars. Alternatively, the sensor(s) 48b may be used to detect traffic conditions or any other condition associated with a particular roadway or railway.”
39. In view of the above it is reasonable to conclude that the invention, both as claimed and described, does not relate to an improvement to the technology that is utilised. Rather the substance of the invention resides in the sending of environmental information in real time from an environmental sensor, where the sensor is one of several present in different locations along a roadway or railway, to a user when it is determined that the user is within a spatial range of the environmental sensor. It follows that the substance of the invention as claimed in claim 1 amounts to nothing more than a scheme for information sharing and is therefore not for a manner of manufacture.
40. I consider it appropriate to now consider the Applicant’s submissions on manner of manufacture before continuing. In this regard I note the Applicant’ statements with respect to the technology as available at the priority date and that:
“…comparing the locations of location-aware devices with the locations of sensors in a sensor network and outputting sensor data to communicator devices based on the comparison is a technical solution, performed inside a computer (i.e. server), to the technical problem of collecting and disseminating sensor data that was not common, or even known, in 2005. The claimed invention provides a technical solution within the analysis unit (i.e., server).”
41. As far as the technology available at the priority date goes I have already concluded that all the invention does, both as described and claimed, is to make use of known technology in a routine fashion. I also reiterate that it is clear that the application does not advance the technology as known in the art before the priority date in any way, let alone in any way that facilitates the operation of the invention. I observe that if I am wrong on this point then it is difficult to see how the application complies with the requirements of s40 of the Act.
42. For similar reasons I do not agree that the invention, either as claimed or described, involves a technical solution, as a matter of substance, as asserted by the Applicant. To the extent that the solution encapsulated by the invention as claimed was not common or known at the priority date it is clear that this is the case due to the nature of the scheme involved in the claimed invention rather than in any technical advancement. Consequently the Applicant’s submissions in this regard are pertinent to the question of whether the invention is novel and inventive, rather than manner of manufacture. I also observe that if the Applicant’s contentions about “…collecting and disseminating sensor data that was not common, or even known, in 2005” was meant (or could be taken) to relate to improvements or developments in the technology so as to allow for the claimed invention to be performed, then again it is difficult to see how the application would comply with the requirements of s40.
Claim 5
43. The scope of claim 5 is substantially similar in nature to claim 1 such that the substance of claim 5 is also for a scheme as discussed with regard to claim 1. It follows that claim 5 is also not for a manner of manufacture.
Are any of the Dependent Claims for a Manner of Manufacture?
44. I have also considered each of the dependent claims. None of these add anything of substance that fundamentally escapes the patentability issues of the independent claims. It follows that none of the dependent claims are for a manner of manufacture.
Is there anything within the Application that provides for a Manner of Manufacture?
45. I have considered the patentability of the invention as claimed in view of the application as a whole and the arguments put forward by the Applicant. I will now consider whether there is any material in the application, beyond that already considered, that may be claimed and result in a manner of manufacture.
46. All of the alternative embodiments disclosed in the application have been outlined earlier in this decision. It is apparent that each of these provides a variation on supplying real time environmental information as defined in the present claims or involves the provision of work assignments to employees based on particular criteria. As for the invention as claimed these embodiments merely make use of existing technology in a known manner before the priority date. It is thus clear that these embodiments are, in substance, nothing more than schemes for delivering environmental information in real time or for assigning work assignments based on relevant criteria.
47. I conclude that there is nothing in the application, beyond that already considered, that could be claimed so as to result in a manner of manufacture.
Manner of Manufacture – Conclusion
48. None of the claims are for a manner of manufacture and there is no other subject matter within the application that would lead to a manner of manufacture if made the subject of a claim.
Inventive Step
49. In view of the difficulties that the application has with respect to manner of manufacture, I consider it superfluous to determine whether the claimed invention comprises an inventive step. As such I will provide no further consideration on the outstanding inventive step objection.
Conclusion
50. None of the claims are for a manner of manufacture. In addition I see no material in the application that could be made the subject of a claim so as to result in that claim being for a manner of manufacture. I therefore refuse the application.
Dr W.E. Guinea
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
5
0