DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to communications: Amendment filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-19 are pending. Claim 1 and 17 are independent.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, and 7-19 under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the jury prediction module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the jury prediction module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regards to claim 1, 3, and 17-20:
Step 1: The claim recites a method, one of the for categories of eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) reads as follows:
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
Step 2A prong 1:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-19 recites:
A method for selecting a jury from a plurality of potential jurors, the method comprising:
collecting an initial set of background data from a jury pool from questionnaires and answers by potential jurors through voir dire, the initial set of background data including the following:
a potential juror's occupation; a potential juror's education; a potential juror's status as an active voter; and a potential juror's status as a business owner;
storing the initial set of background data on a jury selection module operating on a portable multifunction device;
conducting a search, wherein the conducting comprises using the jury selection module and the initial set of background data to identify and acquire a second set of background data from publicly available resources provided on a network;
analyzing the initial and second sets of background data using the jury selection module; and
generating a juror rating from the jury selection module for at least one potential juror of the plurality of potential jurors,
wherein the juror rating includes
a leadership rating representing the likelihood the one potential juror might influence other potential jurors of the plurality of potential jurors during a live, in-person deliberation, wherein the leadership rating is generated from analyzing at least one of the potential juror's occupation and the potential juror's education from the initial set of background data, and
a numerical rating representing the likelihood the one potential juror has a strong personal responsibility, a strong social responsibility, or is neutral, wherein the numerical rating is generated from analyzing at least one of the potential juror's status as an active voter and a potential juror's status as a business owner from the initial set of background data.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the leadership rating includes a classification of the one potential juror as either a leader or follower.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein conducting the search includes identifying at least one social media page affiliated with the at least one potential juror and mining data from the at least one social media page.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing includes comparing the initial and second sets of background data for discrepancies.
9. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
generating a plurality of juror ratings from the jury selection module for additional prospective jurors of the plurality of potential jurors;
using the juror ratings to select a jury;
recording a jury verdict on the jury selection module;
transmitting the jury verdict and the initial and second background data sets to a central sever;
comparing the jury verdict and the initial and second background data sets with at least one additional jury verdict and associated set of data; and
instructing the jury selection module from the central server to adjust its generating of a juror rating.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the background data does not include demographic information of the jury pool.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the juror rating is determined without analyzing the following datum: the potential juror's race, sex, age, country of origin or religion.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the leadership rating is determined without analyzing the following datum: the potential juror's race, sex, age, country of origin or religion.
13. The method of claim 5, wherein the numerical rating is determined without analyzing the following datum: the potential juror's race, sex, age, country of origin or religion.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the steps of conducting a search and analyzing the initial and second sets of background data are performed in real time using the jury selection module.
15. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a proposed voir dire strategy using a process tool of the jury prediction module after the initial and second sets of background data have been analyzed.
16. The method of claim 9 further comprising predicting the jury verdict using a prediction tool of the jury prediction module after the plurality of juror ratings have been generated.
17. A method for selecting a jury from a plurality of potential jurors, the method comprising:
collecting a baseline set of data from a jury pool from questionnaires by potential jurors, the baseline set of data including the following: a potential juror's education; a potential juror's status as an active voter; and a potential juror's status as a business owner;
storing the baseline set of background data on a jury selection module operating on a portable multifunction device;
generating a plurality of initial juror ratings from the jury selection module with each potential juror of the plurality of potential jurors receiving a juror rating, wherein the juror rating includes
a leadership rating classifying the one potential juror as either a leader or a follower, wherein the leadership rating is generated based on at least one of the potential juror's occupation and the potential juror's education from the baseline set of data, and wherein a leader classification represents the likelihood the one potential juror might influence other potential jurors of the plurality of potential jurors during a live, in-person jury deliberation, and
a numerical rating representing the likelihood the one potential juror has a strong personal responsibility, a strong social responsibility, or is neutral, wherein the numerical rating is generated based on at least one of a potential juror's status as an active voter and a potential juror's status as a business owner from the baseline set of data, and;
acquiring a second set of background data from a search of publicly available resources provided on a network,
analyzing the baseline and second sets of background data using the jury selection module to generate a plurality of juror profiles each including a second juror rating adjusted from the initial juror rating;
acquiring a third set of background data from questions asked during voir dire, the questions having been generated from the jury selection module based on the jury selection module identifying additional data that could affect the juror rating;
analyzing the third set of background data using the jury selection module to update the plurality of juror profiles each including a final juror rating adjusted from the second juror rating;
analyzing the baseline, second, and third sets of background data using a prediction module to predict how a potential jury composed from a subset of the plurality of potential jurors would break; and
using the final juror rating to select the jury.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the questions generated from the jury selection module are further formulated based on a type of lawsuit for which the jury is being selected.
19. The method of claim 17, wherein the jury selection module includes a process tool that compares the third set of background data collected from voir dire with the baseline set of data and the second set of data to detect inconsistencies between each data set, and the process tool adjusts the final juror rating based on detected inconsistencies.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the bolded limitations above are directed to a Certain Methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal activity or legal interaction/interaction between people. Method is directed towards selecting and managing interaction of jurors.
Step2A, Prong 2:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements in this claim are “jury selection module operating on a portable multifunction device”, “a central server”, and a “prediction module”. This element is recited at a high level of generality and thus is a generic computer component performing computer functions. Thus these are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (No).
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to 2A, the only additional element is “jury selection module operating on a portable multifunction device”, “a central server”, and a “prediction module” which at best is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea and cannot provide an inventive concept, even when considered in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (No)
Claims 1, 3, and 7-19 is ineligible
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 7-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS HASTY whose telephone number is (571)270-7775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2141 /MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights