{"id":4976,"date":"2025-09-30T09:19:16","date_gmt":"2025-09-30T14:19:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=4976"},"modified":"2025-09-30T21:44:09","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T02:44:09","slug":"captain-kirk-denied-a-patent-on-his-smart-phone-organization-system-but-he-should-feel-bad-in-this-crazy-climate-even-the-transporter-would-be-unpatentable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=4976","title":{"rendered":"Captain Kirk Denied a Patent on his Smart Phone Organization System, but He Should Not Feel Bad, in this Crazy Climate Even the Transporter Would be Unpatentable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Captain Kirk’s alter ego, William Shatner, applied for a patent on a Smart Phone Organization System and Application. His idea, which does not sound so abstract, is to automatically characterize the content of files when saving, thereby allowing easy retrieval by matching the context of the retrieval request with the content of the file. Unfortunately, his patent application was rejected under 35 USC 101, and last month the PTAB affirmed that rejection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

But Kirk need not feel bad, in today’s crazy climate, where the courts created an exception to patentability without properly defining it, and the Patent Bar and the Congress have failed for more than a decade to provide the definition, meritorious inventions are routinely denied protection. In the\u00a0Star Trek universe<\/a>, the transporter was invented in the early 22nd century by Dr. Emory Erickson, who also became the first human to be successfully transported. If we don’t get some clarity on patentable subject matter, consider how Dr. Erickson’s patent application might be treated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0In re Erickson<\/em>, (Fed. Cir.\u00a02225<\/strong>), the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance of the decision of the PTAB affirming the Examiner\u2019s rejection of all of the pending claims of Emory Erickson\u2019s application 31\/239484 entitled \u201cTeleportation System and Methods.\u201d \u00a0The PTAB opinion explained that the claimed invention, which Mr. Erickson calls a \u201cTransporter,\u201d is directed to a teleportation apparatus and a method for \u201cnearly instantaneously\u201d moving an object from one location to another.\u00a0 Mr. Erickson apparently provided a practical demonstration of his invention during a recent outage of the USPTO\u2019s EFS system, delivering his Applicant\u2019s Brief on Appeal to the USPTO via his \u201cTransporter,\u201d together with the $50,000 fee (37 CFR 1.17(zz)) for non-electronic filings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transporting Goods is an Abstract Idea<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board began its analysis with the familiar two-step test from the classic Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u2019l<\/em>, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), which requires at step one a determination whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and if so, at step two to a determination whether the claim is directed to \u201csomething more.\u201d  The Board noted that the Examiner found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of \u201ctransporting goods,\u201d and the Board agreed, citing GT Nexus, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc.<\/em>, 2015 WL 6747142 (N.D.Cal. 2015)(\u201cthe shipping of goods is a conventional business practice \u2018long prevalent in our system of commerce.\u2019\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Operation in the Real World Does not Make Idea Less Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Erickson argued that the Transporter would \u201cresult in life altering consequences,\u201d the Board said that while laudable, it does not render the system or method any less abstract, citing<\/em> University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Company<\/em>, 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Board considered the case to be similar to Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority<\/em>, 873 F.3d 1364, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the patent owner\u2019s arguments that the invention operated \u201cin the tangible world\u201d and satisfied \u201ca public demand for more convenient travel that did not exist in the prior art\u201d did not save the claims from being directed to an abstract idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Novelty of Components Does Not Make Ideas Less Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board also rejected the arguments that the Transporter, and in particular its Heisenberg compensator, had never before existed, citing Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC<\/em>, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(\u201cWe do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete. In any event, any novelty in implementation of the idea is a factor to be considered only in the second step of the Alice<\/em><\/strong> analysis.\u201d). \u201cIt is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea.\u201d TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C.<\/em>, 823 F.3d 607, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lack of Preemtion Does not Make Idea Less Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board also dismissed Erickson\u2019s argument that the claimed invention did not preempt all methods of transporting goods, citing buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.<\/em>, 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2014) (collecting cases). A narrow claim directed to an\u00a0abstract<\/strong>\u00a0idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible, for \u201c[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.\u201d Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.<\/em>, 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Groundbreaking, Innovative, and Brilliant Can Still Be Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the Board found Erickson\u2019s practical demonstrations of teleportation were \u201cimpressive,\u201d but said that even accepting that the techniques claimed are \u201c[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,\u201d that is not enough for eligibility. Ass\u2019n <\/em>for\u00a0Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.<\/em>, 569 U.S. 576, 591, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013);\u00a0accord<\/em>,\u00a0buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.<\/em>, 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor was it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 102 and 103.\u00a0See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.<\/em>, 566 U.S. 66, 89\u201390, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012);\u00a0Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839\u00a0<\/em>F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (\u201c[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a \u00a7 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating \u00a7 102 novelty.\u201d);\u00a0Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.<\/em>, 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board concluded that no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.
SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC<\/em>, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At\u00a0Alice<\/em>\u00a0Step II, the Board found that most of the components were conventional off-the-shelf electronic and computer components, and thus there was no \u201csomething more\u201d to save the claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, sorry Captain Kirk, we may understand space before we understand what is and what is not patentable subject matter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Captain Kirk’s alter ego, William Shatner, applied for a patent on a Smart Phone Organization System and Application. His idea, which does not sound so abstract, is to automatically characterize the content of files when saving, thereby allowing easy retrieval … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4976"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4979,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976\/revisions\/4979"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}