DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on January 13, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 20-21, and 34-38 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 20-21 and 34-38.
Specification
The amendment filed September 10, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “SELF-COMPACTING RELATIONAL MULTI-LEVEL TREE SYSTEM THAT DELIVERS PARETO EFFICIENCY”. “Pareto Efficiency” is defined as an allocation of resources where it is impossible to make one person better off without making at least one other person worse off. Since the multi-level tree system progresses each age-ordered position assignment onto the next successive higher level and results in ultimately graduating other entities out of the tree system, the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system does not deliver pareto efficiency because making one person better off will make at least one person worse off. The only support in the original disclosure if sound in paragraph 56 where it states “The present disclosure has provided a novel Pareto efficient fair distribution solution for the first time by embodying in it many logical, moral and productive ways, including enabling HSYG objectives through a backward re-empowerment chain effects solution for the young and energetic entities to shoulder reproductive roles in the economies”. This paragraph does not support that the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system delivers pareto efficiency. Instead, it supports that implementing the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system in a specific environment, based on a specific set of logical factors, a specific set of morals, and a specific productivity means could assist in making said specific environment Pareto Efficient. For example, if the objective of the specific environment is Head Start Young Generation that aims to deliver a distinctively safe wealth circulation activity in the economy in order to achieve a higher degree of collective generosity and inclusive societies for the 21st century economies, wherein graduating out means that the individual no longer has to share their wealth with others in the tree and moving to a next higher level of the tree as you age means that you share less of your wealth with others in the tree, then the person graduating out of the tree is better off because they are no longer sharing their wealth with others, the person moving up is better off because as they move up they are sharing less of their wealth with others in the tree. However, any new person being added to the tree is worse off because now they must begin sharing their wealth with others in the tree. Thus, this does not describe a multi-level tree that delivers pareto efficiency because at least one person is worse off from the standpoint of sharing wealth. Now, let’s examine the above tree from the standpoint of an intense sense of well-being the people feel from being able to share with others. From this standpoint, the person graduating out of the tree would be worse off because they can no longer obtain the same sense of well-being for sharing that they were previously able to obtain. The person moving up in the tree is worse off as they cannot obtain the same level of well-being they previously obtained because they are sharing less of their wealth. The only person that is better off would be a person added to the tree as they can now obtain a sense of well-being from sharing their wealth that was previously unobtainable. Thus, such a multi-level tree system would not describe a multi-level tree that delivers pareto efficiency because at least one person is worse off from the standpoint of sharing wealth. If we consider a new multi-level tree where the person must share more of their wealth as they age up into higher categories, instead of less of their wealth as they age, then such a tree also would not be pareto efficient from the standpoint of wealth. While the person graduating out would be better off since they no longer share their wealth, any person moving up would be worse off because they must now share more of their wealth. Likewise, any new person added to the tree must begin sharing their wealth. Thus, this multi-level tree would not deliver pareto efficiency from the standpoint of wealth. Additionally, it would not be delivering pareto efficiency from the standpoint of the intense sense of well-being obtained from sharing with others because the person graduated out of the tree can no longer obtain such a sense of well-being from sharing because they are no longer permitted to share their wealth. The examiner can think of no way in which the applicant multi-level tree system delivers pareto efficiency. According to the applicant’s disclosure in paragraph 56, it is possible for the self-compacting tree to provide a novel pareto efficient fair distribution solution in the specific instance of young and energetic entities shouldering the reproductive roles in the economy given certain logical, moral and productive ways. However, the applicant’s specification does not describe an embodiment where such pareto efficiency, given the dictionary definition, is obtained. Paragraph 55 of the applicant’s disclosure provides an example where qualifying elderly people donate toward a shrinking younger population shouldering reproductive roles in the economy. When said donations are monetary in nature, then this embodiment would appear to encompass at least the first or second self-compacting multi-level trees explained above which are not delivering pareto efficiency. Therefore, while the applicant’s disclosure alludes to the fact that the self-compacting multi-level tree invented by the applicant can be used to obtain a pareto efficient fair distribution solution, it does not provide any example of the multi-level tree actually being implement to deliver such pareto efficient fair distributions. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could not conclude that the self-compacting multi-level tree itself delivers pareto efficiency nor conclude that the applicant has possession of such a self-compacting multi-level tree. As such, based on the disclosure, the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system itself does not deliver “PARETO EFFICIENCY”. Instead, the applicant indicates that the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system, when implemented in a specific limited way of which is not disclosed, could deliver pareto efficient fair distributions. The examiner suggests amending the title of the specification to recite “SELF-COMPACTING RELATIONAL MULTI-LEVEL TREE SYSTEM”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-21 and 34-38 are objected to because of the following informalities: Amendments filed with a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) should be based on the last entered claim set to ensure clarity. According to the claim markings, the amendments to claims 20-21 and 34-38 appear to be based on the amendment to the claims filed on December 8, 2025. However, the amendment to the to the claims filed on December 8, 2025 were not entered as indicated in the advisory action dated December 18, 2025. As such, the claim text submitted with the RCE is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 and MPEP 714 because the markings (e.g., underlines/strike-throughs) do not show changes relative to the immediate prior entered version. The examiner is electing to object to the claims instead of sending out a notice of non-compliant amendment to further the prosecution of the case.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-21 and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 20 and 34 have been amended to recite: “create, by a processor, said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system” and “constructs by said processor, said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”, respectively. The examiner cannot find support for these limitations in the applicant’s disclosure.
Independent claims 20 and 34 are system claims. A patent claim to a system must be physical apparatus that comprises structure. In the instant case the claimed self-compacting relational multi-level tree system comprises structure because the processor of the system is performing the steps. However, the first step being performed by the processor is creating “said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”. Thus, as claimed the processor would be required to create both the physical apparatus of a self-compacting relational multi-level tree system, as well as, create said processor itself. The examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s disclosure for a processor that creates a physical apparatus. Additionally, the examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s disclosure for a processor which is able to create itself. As such, it is clear that independent claims 20 and 34 have been amended to recite subject matter which fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 21 and 35-38 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 20-21 and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 20 and 34 contain substantially similar claim terms and phrases. As such, the examiner will use claim 20, as an example, when detailing the terms and phrases found in both claim 20 and claim 34. Claim 20, as amended, has been amended to recite the following limitations which the examiner has been unable to find support for in the applicant’s specification:
“A self-compacting multi-level tree system that overcomes physics of exponential incremental effects of conventional multi-level tree systems to deliver Pareto Efficiency in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”
The applicant’s disclosure does not have support for a self-compacting multi-level tree system that delivers pareto efficiency. The only mention in the applicant’s disclosure of “pareto” is in paragraph 56 where it states: “The present disclosure has provided a novel Pareto efficient fair distribution solution for the first time by embodying in it many logical, moral and productive ways, including enabling Head Start Young Generation (HSYG) objectives through a backward re-empowerment chain effects solution for the young and energetic entities to shoulder reproductive roles in the economies”. This sentence does not support the contention that the self-compacting multi-level tree system itself delivers pareto efficiency. Instead, it purports that a Pareto efficient fair distribution solution can be obtained by using the self-compacting multi-level tree system in an environment where specific logical, moral and productive objective, including HSYG objectives are applied to a backward re-empowerment chain effects solution for the young and energetic entities to shoulder reproductive roles in the economies. As such, the disclosure supports the fair distribution solution (e.g., backward re-empowerment chain effects solution) is pareto efficient when using the specific objectives and applying the self-compacting multi-level tree system in this specific environment to obtain said fair distribution solution. Thus, it does not support that the self-compacting multi-level tree system delivers pareto efficiency. Paragraph 55 states “It is expected that many ageing economies with mushroom' shape populations would gradually be hitting a population ageing rate above 4.2, the average of the OECD member countries. The HSYG fair distribution solution is critical at this point, and it would likely work with more qualifying elderlies donating economically toward supporting shrinking younger populations shouldering reproductive roles in the economies”. Once again, this paragraph supports that implementing the HSYG fair distribution solution addresses a problem associated with ageing economies with mushroom' shape populations would gradually be hitting a population ageing rate above 4.2, and not merely implementing the self-compacting multi-level tree. HSYG objectives are not a term of the art and the applicant’s disclosure never actually defines specifically what is meant by HYSG objectives. However, Paragraphs 51 of the applicant’s disclosure details an example of fair distribution policies which the examiner will attempt to categorically summarize based on the applicant’s disclosure in paragraph 51:
Requirements for participation:
entity must have citizenship
entity must beat least 18 years old
Requirements for active account holder status:
a registration fee may not be paid to remain an active account holder;
entity must subscribe to a respective contribution before a fair distribution year begins;
entity must pay the year’s monthly administrative fee in advance;
entity must pay the year’s subscription in advance;
entity must pay any required local tax in advance;
does not require sponsoring any child or sub-child entities
must not consume and market any products of any kind
must not be an IBO (Independent Business Owner)
may lapse or reinstate respective account status before each distribution year begins, wherein lapsing any particular year's participation regardless of anticipating a qualifying or non-qualifying period would automatically become inactive account status holder
Benefits provided to entities with active account holder status:
management an inclusion in following year position reassignment reprioritizing process, during entity age advancements;
ability to donating, will, or entrust, his or her account managements an maintenances;
receive the due year-long monthly fair distribution benefits, assuming the entity is either successfully assigned or partially assigned with full qualifying child and sub-child distribution assignments
year-long monthly fair distribution benefits computed according to the number of qualifying child and sub-child entities assignment;
given a fair distribution assignment certificate at the beginning of the fair distribution year upon successful assignment of the number of child and sub-child entities during the year's position assignment reprioritizing process
qualification for fair distribution benefits is not based on commission schemes
requirements of entities with active account holder status who have been successfully assigned with fully qualifying child and sub-child leveraging assignments:
agree to donate a token of the monthly qualifying benefits toward contributing Head Start Young Generation (HSYG)'s objective;
requirements and issues regarding non-active account holder:
a registration fee may not be paid to remain a non-active account holder
may lapse or reinstate respective account status before each distribution year begins;
will not be managed
automatically excluded from the following year position assignment reprioritizing process
cannot donate, will or entrust, his or her account managements and maintenances to designated spouse or the estate, otherwise the account is successfully reinstated into active status
entity may reinstate an inactive account status before the following distribution year begins by contributing the respective year's subscription, fee and tax required in advance, in order to become an active entity account status holder;
Overall issues
reinstating an inactive account status would incur insertion of entity into the position assignment reprioritizing process, whereby, these age prioritized insertions would result in insertion displacements of other active entity account status holders' positions within the collective fair distribution system, wherein a reinstated active entity account status holder is required to observe a minimum of ‘n’ number of years of insertion transfers for every one (1) year intentional or non-intentional lapse participation, this is done by transferring any assigned qualifying benefits to the first or subsequent partially qualifying entity at the lowest level of respective ARIT, whom are affected by these insertion displacements
new citizenship conversion would also incur insertion of the entity into the position assignment reprioritizing process, whereby such age prioritized insertions would result in insertion displacements of others active entity account status holders' positions within the collective fair distribution system, wherein newly converted citizen is required to observe one (1) year of insertion transfer, this is done by transferring any assigned qualifying benefits to the first or subsequent partially qualifying entity at the lowest level of respective ARIT, whom are affected by these insertion displacements
However, even if each and every one of the above objectives would be required and used along with the self-compacting multi-level tree system the fair distribution policy would not appear to be pareto efficient. “Pareto Efficiency” is defined as an allocation of resources where it is impossible to make one person better off without making at least one other person worse off. It would appear that the reinstating of an inactive account status and the new citizenship conversion process would both make the reinstated account holder better off and/or the new citizen active account holder better off, the fact that these cause the insertion displacements of other entities, means that these people are worse off than they would have been had they not been displaced. As such, the examiner is unable to find a single example in the applicant’s of fair distribution policy objectives implementing the self-compacting multi-level tree system which would be pareto efficient. As such, it is clear that the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for the clamed “A self-compacting multi-level tree system that overcomes physics of exponential incremental effects of conventional multi-level tree systems to deliver Pareto Efficiency in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system” of independent claim 20 or the claimed “A self-compacting relational multi-level tree system that delivers Pareto Efficiency having performed by a self-compacting relational multi-level tree system processor” of independent claim 34. Therefore claims 20 and 34, as currently amended, fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 21 and 35-38 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 20-21 and 34-38 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.
Clams 20-21 and 34-38 are replete with antecedent basis issues, the sheer number of which render the claims indefinite. Additionally, claims 20-21 and 34-38 include terms and phrases that are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. Finally, claims 20-21 and 34-38 recite limitations which fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention
Independent claims 20 and 34 recite substantially similar terms and phrase. As such, the examiner will use claim 20 to identify the terms and phrases that are indefinite in both claims 20 and 34.
Claim 20 recites: “create, by a processor, said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system by dissecting large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions into optimal sizes of flat-top multi-level trees inside the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system, starting with at least two (2) levels, wherein other levels more than two (2) could be desired”.
First, the terms “large”, “optimal”, and “desire” are relative terms. The terms “large”, “optimal”, are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In contrast the term “desire(d)” is a relative term. However, the term “desire(d)” is defined by the claim as being two or more
Second, the phrase “the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim has never previously recited “a desired level of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure”.
Third, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what the applicant means by “prioritized age-ordered positions” because they could not determine positions is referring to. Are these intended to be prioritized age-ordered positions of people/entities registered to participate in a fair distribution system? Perhaps they are intended to be a large quantity of age ranges? Maybe, they are intended to be prioritized age-ordered positions of people/entities that are citizens of a country or some other list of people or some other type of objects like a prioritized list of the age cars at a dealership? Is it only a list of something that has been prioritized and age ordered or does this list of positions provide additional information such as the age of each object in the prioritized list? What does the applicant mean by the term position? The age of person does not inherently have a position. So one or ordinary skill in the art would not have any type of reference with regard to what the applicant means by positions. Perhaps, the applicant intends for the large quantity of age ordered positions to be age ordered positions of some type of object currently with a first multi-level tree structure? If so, is each level of the first multi-level tree based on an age or an age range? Are the age-ordered positions ordered such that the oldest person is at the top of the first multi-level tree such that the order of the data is oldest to youngest or is the order that the youngest is at the top of the first multi-level tree such that the order of the data is youngest to oldest? What type of prioritization was performed on the data? Assuming the age order is oldest to youngest, is it possible for a younger person to be higher on the list than someone older than them based on the prioritization? Without some idea of the metes and bound of the term ”prioritized age-order” and the metes and bounds of the term “position”, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how to perform the dissecting of the large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions into optimal sizes of flat-top multi-level trees inside the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure of said self-compacting relational multi- level tree system.
Fourth, it is unclear whether the applicant is intending to claim to be interpreted as the dissected large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions were already inside the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system or whether the applicant intends the limitation to be interpreted as the invention obtains a list of prioritized age-ordered positions and to dissect this obtained list into optimal sizes of flat-top multi-level trees which are then stored within the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure. If the first interpretation is intended, are the desire levels inside the ARIT data structure already present? Are the large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions intended to be positions in a first multi-level tree already existing within the ARIT data structure? Is one to assume that this first multi-level tree comprising prioritized age-ordered positions arranged such that each level of the first multi-level is associated with a specific age or specific age range because the first multi-level tree is in a age range interval tabulation data structure? If the second interpretation is to be used, are the ”desire levels” intended to be age ranges? Does the processor create these desire levels or are the desire levels already present in the large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions and the applicant invention merely uses the pre-defined desire levels?
Fifth, what does the applicant mean by “optimal sizes of flat-top multi-level trees inside the desire levels”? Does he intend the limitation to recite that each desire level has an optimal number of flat-top multi-level trees? Perhaps he intends the limitation overall set of desire levels have an optimal number of flat-top multi-level trees? Perhaps size is not meant to refer to the number of multi-level trees inside the desire levels, but instead to refers to the number of nodes that each flat-top multi-level tree inside the desire levels as a whole? Or perhaps, it is intended to refer to the number of nodes that each flat-top multi-level tree has within each desire level is what is optimal after the dissecting?
Fifth, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the invention performs the claimed creating step. Creating the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system in the manner claimed is the first step of the claim. However, it would not appear to be possible to perform the claimed creating without first knowing the desired levels of the ARIT data structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would assume, based on the limitation, that they can choose a desire level of two or more levels, and create the self-compacting relational multi- level tree system based on their decision. However, this is not the case because the second step of the claim, which occurs after the creating step, is defining the desire levels above a legal threshold of 17 years old. As such, one of ordinary skill in the would be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is able to create the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system in the manner claimed, before a desire level of the ARIT self-compacting relational multi-level tree system is actually defined because creating the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system in the manner claimed appears to require knowing the desire level of the ARIT data structure. Assuming that the desire levels are age ranges, does the applicant intend for the self-compacting relational multi-level tree to first be created using two or more user desired age ranges, wherein the large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions includes at least an entity identifier and an age of each entity, wherein the two or more desired age ranges must encompass every age of every entity in the large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions, such that every entity is placed within one of the two or more ages ranges; then, based on the defining step, adjusting the original desired age ranges such that there are still at least two desired age ranges but now said age ranges span the ages of 17 to the oldest entity, and removing all entities from the second self-compacting relational multi-level tree that were younger than the age 17? This would be the only way the examiner can think of which might account for first creating the self-compacting relational multi-level tree dissecting large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions into optimal sizes of flat-top multi-level trees inside user determined desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure. Maybe the applicant intends the desire levels to already be present in the ARIT data structure or provide in the large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions, when the creating occurs? If this were the case, the claim limitation could be that the processor creates self-compacting relational multi-level tree system in the manner claimed using these pre-defined desire levels and then modifies the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system to remove all previously assigned positions within the flat-top multi-level trees for those entities which were under 17 years of age, thus generate a second self-compacting relational multi-level tree system?
Since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, as described above, claims 20 and 34 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention
Claim 20 further recites: “define the desire levels of said ARIT data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system above a legal threshold age of 17 years old”. As indicated in the immediately preceding argument, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended metes and bounds of this limitation. When given the limitation its broadest reasonable interpretation, it would merely require defining a rule regarding the desired levels of the ARIT. However, merely defining such a rule would result in a rule that is not used by the applicant’s invention because the positions within flat-top trees of the ARIT were already created based on desire levels that had no such restrictions on age. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art might conclude that the applicant has merely mis-ordered the series of steps being performed by the invention and that defining was intended to be performed by the processor before the creating step. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art might conclude that the claimed defining step is intended to mean modifying the created self-compacting relational multi-level tree by removing those individuals assigned to position nodes within the flat-top multi-level trees that are under the age of 17. Since each of these possible interpretations of the limitations result in an invention which is of different scope, this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “wherein, the levels of the age ranges interval tabulation data structure in an exemplary relational multi-level tree system comprise more than two (2) levels should eight (8) levels of ARIT is desired, wherein other combination of age range and levels of age ranges interval could be desired”. The claim term “the age ranges interval tabulation data structure” has antecedent basis to the “Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system” recited in the creating step. However, the claimed “the age ranges interval tabulation data structure” is apparently not “of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system” as required but instead some new type of ARIT associated with an exemplary relational multi-level tree system which need not be the self-compacting relational multi-level tree recited in the creating step. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether the applicant intends this “age ranges interval tabulation table data structure and “the exemplary relational multi-level tree “being claimed, in this wherein clause, to be a new relational multi-level tree with a new ARIT data structure; a relational multi-level tree which contains the large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions which was inside the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure such that the originally claimed ARIT was not “of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system” as previously claimed; or the phrase “an exemplary relational multi-level tree system” was intended to recite “an exemplary self-compacting relational multi-level tree of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree” and, as such, have antecedent basis to the original ARIT data structure, as well as, the originally claimed self-compacting relational multi-level tree. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what the applicant means by: “an exemplary relational multi-level tree system comprise more than two (2) levels should eight (8) levels of ARIT is desired, wherein other combination of age range and levels of age ranges interval could be desired”. It is clear that the claim limitation requires the exemplary relational multi-level tree to comprise more than two desire levels. However, what is the intended metes and bounds of the phrase “should eight level of ARIT is desires”. Does the applicant intend the metes and bounds of this phrase to mean that the exemplary relational multi-level tree comprises more than two desire levels but no more than eight desire levels? Perhaps, the applicant intends this to be merely an example such that the limitation is to be read as “an exemplary relational multi-level tree system comprises more than two desire levels, for example the exemplary relational multi-level tree system may have eight desire levels inside the ARIT data structure”? Perhaps the applicant intends the limitation to indicate a preference associated with the desire levels of the exemplary relational multi-level tree and interpreted as “an exemplary relational multi-level tree comprising more than two desire levels inside the ARIT data structure, wherein the exemplary relational multi-level tree preferable comprises eight desire levels”. Finally, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended metes and bounds of the phrase “wherein other combination of age range and levels of age ranges interval could be desired”. First the claim has never mentioned a first combination of age range and levels of age ranges interval with regards to the exemplary relational multi-level tree or the self-compacting relational multi-level tree. The only levels previously claimed are desire levels inside the self-compacting relational multi-level tree, wherein the desire levels are defined above a legal threshold age of 17 years old; and the levels of the exemplary relational multi-level tree which are required to have no association with age whatsoever. As such the phrase “other combination of age range and levels of age ranges interval could be desired” lacks antecedent basis. Nowhere in the claims is the desire level required to be a “levels of age ranges interval” or is a combination of age range and levels of age ranges intervals” ever recited so one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether the applicant inadvertently omitted a previous limitation that would have made the desire levels associated with levels of age ranges interval, as well as, inadvertently omitted a previous limitation creating combination of age range and levels of age ranges intervals; inadvertently omitted a previous limitation that would have made the two or more levels, of the exemplary relational multi-level tree, associated with levels of age ranges interval, as well as, inadvertently omitted a previous limitation creating combination of age range and levels of age ranges for these level; or whether the applicant is claiming a new situation in which a combination of age range and a new levels of age ranges interval may be desired to be created. However, if this is the case, then is this newly claimed combination supposed to be in relation to the exemplary relational multi-level tree or the self-compacting relational multi-level tree? Perhaps the applicant somehow believes that either the previously claimed desire levels or the previously claim two or more level inherently include a combination of age range and levels of age ranges interval. If the examiner were to make such an assumption, then is this limitation to mean that, rather than previously required the desire levels no not need to be at least 2 levels, the desire levels could be just one desire level? Or perhaps it is intended to mean that the exemplary relational multi-level tree system need not comprise more than two (2) levels as previously required by the claim and instead may comprise only one level? Given, that the interpretation given to each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “wherein depending on technical application a typical age ranges interval tabulation data structure in an exemplary relational multi-level tree system could comprise; the first level corresponds to age range of 18-26;the second level corresponds to age range of 27-35;the third level corresponds to age range of 36-44;the fourth level corresponds to age range of 45-53;the fifth level corresponds to age range of 54-62;the sixth level corresponds to age range of 63-71;the seventh level corresponds to age range of 72-80;the eighth level corresponds to age range of 81-90; and wherein, the age range within each ARIT is more than one (1) year should nine (9) years is desired”. First, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what type of “technical application” would result in an exemplary relational multi-level tree like the one described. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what factors associated with a specific technical application resulted in the exemplary relational multi-level tree. As such, one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine an exemplary relational multi-level tree “depending on technical application” based on the information provided in the claim. Second, the claimed “a typical age ranges interval tabulation data structure” does not have proper antecedent basis to the ARIT data structure of the previously claim exemplary relational multi-level tree or the ARIT data structure of the previously self-compacting relational multi-level tree. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether the ARIT data structure recited in this limitation is a new ARIT data structure called a typical ARIT data structure or is intended to have some association to one of the two other ARIT data structures recited in the claim. Likewise, the claimed “an exemplary relational multi-level tree system” does not have proper antecedent basis to the previously claim “an exemplary relational multi-level tree system”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could not determine whether this a new type of exemplary relational multi-level tree system or is intended to have some association with the previously claimed exemplary relational multi-level tree system. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “wherein, the age range within each ARIT is more than one (1) year should nine (9) years is desired”. First, the claim has only previously recited different ARIT data structures, but has never recited any other type of ARIT. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether the term ARIT is a typographical error which should recite “ARIT data structure”, or whether the applicant is introducing a new term. Second, the terms “the age range” and “each ARIT” lack proper antecedent basis. Thus, far the claim has recited what might be three different ARIT data structures. The first ARIT data structure of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree, the second ARIT data structure of the first exemplary relational multi-level tree, and the third ARIT data structure of the second exemplary relational multi-level tree. Thus, each of these three ARIT data structures would be an ARIT data structure in the claims. By using the term “each ARIT (data structure)”, the limitation would be required to be performed for all of these data structures. However, the first ARIT data structure of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree is not required to have “an age range”. Thus, the claimed “the age range” would not be able to be applies to this ARIT data structure. Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended metes and bounds of the phrase “should nine years is desired”. It is clear that the age range within the ARIT data structure is required to be more than one year but what is the intend metes and bounds of the limitation “should nine years is desired”? Does the applicant intend the metes and bounds of this phrase to mean that the age ranges comprises more than one year but no more than nine years? Perhaps, the applicant intends this to be merely an example such that the limitation is to be read as “wherein the age range within each ARIT is more than one year, for example the age range might be nine years”? Perhaps the applicant intends the limitation to indicate a preference associated with the age range used and the limitation be interpreted as ““wherein the age range within each ARIT is more than one years, and preferably nine years”. Given, that the interpretation given to each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “construct and use a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) for size and measurement considerations to structurally govern the sizes of multi-level trees with endless broadening base limit by limiting how big the base limit of planned multi-level trees could grow”. First, the term “Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC)” is not a term of the art. Additionally, the applicant’s specification does not define the term “Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC)”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the term “Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC)”, how to construct a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC), nor how to use a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) to structurally govern the sizes of multi-level trees with endless broadening base limit by limiting how big the base limit of planned multi-level trees could grow. The applicant’s disclosure does provide an example of a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) in figure 4b. Given, this example one could certain construct a chart of this type by randomly assigning each levels strength or even randomly choosing a higher level strength for each successive layer, but one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention determines each levels strength. Only if one could determine how the applicant’s invention determines each levels strengths could they be able to construct a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) in the same manner as the Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) claimed in the invention. Second, “for size and measurement considerations”. The claim has previously created the self-compacting relational multi-level tree by dissecting large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions into optimal sizes of flat-top multi-level trees inside the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure. This step was done without the use of the Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) that is now being created. As such, one would not expected to use this chart for this previously performed size consideration. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the intended metes and bounds of using the Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) for size considerations. What size considerations is the claim referring to? Likewise, the claim does not appear to require performing any type of measurement. What measurement considerations is the claim referring to? One or ordinary skill in the art can tell from the claims the LSAC is to be used to structurally govern the sizes of multi-level trees with endless broadening base limit by limiting how big the base limit of planned multi-level trees could grow. However, the recited “multi-level trees with endless broadening base limit” does not have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “self-compacting relational multi-level tree”, “flat-top multi-level trees”, first “exemplary relational multi-level tree”, or second “exemplary relational multi-level tree”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether they are supposed use to the LSAC to govern one or more of these previously claimed multi-level trees, or supposed to use the LSAC to govern some unclaimed multi-level trees. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how the applicant’s invention to structurally govern the sizes of multi-level trees with endless broadening base limit by limiting how big the base limit of planned multi-level trees could grow because doing so would require applying the LSAC in a particular manner which has not been described in the claim. Given, that the interpretation of each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “presorting by said processor, sorting entities' age priorities information from the entities' database into a presorted ordered age priority sequence, prioritizes each entity into said prioritized age-ordered positions in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system sequentially from said presorted ordered age priority sequence” One or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what the “sorting entities' age priorities information” is intended to refer to. The claim has never previously recited a “sorting entity” and this mention of a sorting entity did not include an article such as “a” or “an” before it was recited which means that this is not likely the term was intended to be introduced. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what type of age priorities information the limitation is referring to. The only other type of priority mentioned in the claim is the prioritized age-ordered positions which was already presorted before is was dissected when creating the self-compacting relational multi-level tree. Presumably the flat-top multi-level trees within the ARIT data structure of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree could also be considered to be presorted because the flat-top multi-level trees were created using the prioritized age-ordered positions. However neither of these presorted prioritized age-ordered positions is required to have any sort of priorities information other than the prioritized age-ordered positions themselves. Additionally, this data is already in a presorted ordered age priority sequence and would not appear to undergo any type of additional sorting into a different age ordered priority sequence. Thus, one of ordinary skill would not expect this to be the data being presorted in the limitation. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that this limitation is intended to be a new a presorted ordered age priority sequence associated with some other sorting entities’ age priorities information that is obtained from a database but then how could the applicant’s invention “prioritizes each entity into said prioritized age-ordered positions in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system sequentially from said presorted ordered age priority sequence”. The claims “said prioritized age-ordered positions” has antecedent basis to the prioritized age-ordered position that have already been used to create the self-compacting relational multi-level tree. Thus “said prioritized age-ordered positions” were already presorted before the creating took place and were already inserted into the flat-top multi-level trees when the self-compacting relational multi-level tree. Hence, it would appear that this limitation is either gathering the same data used in creating the original prioritized age-ordered positions, presorting it again based on some type of priority information, and sequentially inserting each entity a second time into the flat-top multi-level trees which would result in each entity occupying 2 different positions in the self-compacting relational multi-level tree. Is this what the applicant intends to occur? Perhaps the applicant intended to perform this presorting step before the creating of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree rather than in the order claimed? If so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what type of priority information the claim is using to perform the presorting. Presumably, it is merely how old each entity is. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how such a sequence can be created should anyone being sorted was born on the same day. If the database included birth information that was more precise then day, and included for example the time of day, or second of the day each person was born then many such presorting issues could be avoided, but not completely ruled out as it is still possible for the list of entities, given the large quantities of such entities, to run into situation in which it might not be possible to determine a given sequence for two entities in the group. Does the priority information in the database provide some type of priority information other than date of birth which would allow such a priority sequence to be determined when two people have the same birthday? Or is the priority information only intended to be the date of birth? Given, that the interpretation of each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “periodically progressing by said processor each prioritized age-ordered position assigned in said self- compacting relational multi-level tree system onto the next successive higher level of ARIT on an interval indications should during the age advancement of entities' age be desired wherein, said periodic progressions of each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT result in activities of releasing all prioritized age-ordered positions throughout said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein, in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each level of respective ARIT in said age ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”. One or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is able to perform this step. The examiner is going to assume that the applicant does not intend, in the previous step of the claim, for each entity occupying two positions in the optimal number of flat-top multi-level trees that are inside the ARIT data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system, and that instead the presorted was intended to occur prior to the creating. This is being done because the issues with this limitation are greatly compounded should the former interpretation be the applicant’s intent. It is clear, the instant limitation is used to periodically progressing each prioritized age-ordered position assigned in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention performs such a progression. First, the phrase “the next successive higher level of ARIT” lacks proper antecedent basis. Assuming that the applicant intends this limitation to recite “a next successive higher level of the two or more desire level of the ARIT data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”, then this limitation would be referring to only progressing positions from a flat-top tree associated with a lower age range to a position within a flat-top tree associated with the next higher level. Such a progression, would not allow a person in a flat-top tree in a first age level to progress to a higher level of the flat-top tree in the first age level, because this would be a periodic progression to the next higher level of the flat-top tree and not a periodic progression to the next higher level of the ARIT data structure. Does the applicant actually intend that the progression be based on the next higher level of the ARIT data structure? Or does the applicant intend the claimed “ARIT” to be something other than the next higher level of the “ARIT data structure” such that progression occur within the individual flat-top trees? Next, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to figure out the intended metes and bounds of the limitation “on an interval indications should during the age advancement of entities' age be desired”. Does this mean that there is a predetermine interval at which the progressions must occur? Or is there a predetermined interval, and someone operating the invention has the option of not progressing entities at the end of said interval depending on said persons desire? The first interpretation would require the progression to absolutely occur at the end of each interval. The second interpretation would require checking to see whether an operator of the system desires to initiate progression at the end of each interval. These are two vastly different scopes. Speaking of the claim “an interval”. This term is a relative term. The applicant’s claim does not define the interval, and the applicant’s specification does not limit this interval to a specific range of time. As such, the term is indefinite. One could guess that the interval should be between “the beginning or end of every day” and “the time it is until the next soonest birthdate of a person that will age out of an age range”. Why use the time it is until the next soonest birthdate of a person that will age out of an age range, as the maximum interval? Well, because if the interval were longer than the next birthday, then the invention would have people assigned to age ranges that they might no longer fit within, such as a 27 year old still in the 18-26 age range. However, this cannot be the range of the claimed “an interval” because the interval could not be a single interval as claimed. Instead, it would be a value that is constantly be changed relative to how soon the next birthdate is.for anyone that will age out of an age range. Thus, it appears to be impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed “an interval”. Likewise, if the progression is not required to occur at the end of each interval, then this could also result in people being in age ranges for which they do not qualify. However, if progression is required to occur how does the invention handle a situation in which two people must progress out of a lower age range, but only one person in the higher age range is move to the next higher level. Given that there is no mechanism disclosed in which additional nodes can be added to the optimized number of flat-top trees, nor that new flat-top trees can be created, it would not appear possible to move both people to the next higher desire level of the ARIT data structure, but if you cannot progress both people, then one person will be in an age range that does not match their age. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended metes and bounds of the limitation “wherein, said periodic progressions of each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT result in activities of releasing all prioritized age-ordered positions throughout said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein, in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each level of respective ARIT in said age ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”. First, the limitation recites “said periodic progressions of each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT”. This means that the person progressing is placed in a “prioritized age-ordered position” on the next higher age range desire level. But once the person is placed into such an open position, the limitation requires “releasing all prioritized age-ordered positions throughout said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions”. As such, it appears that the progressions are made and required progressing people are place within any open position in the flat-top multi-level tree of the age range desire level they moved into. After this occurs, the limitation requires that everyone in every position of every flat-top tree of every age range desire level in the self-compacting relational multi-level tree be release from their currently assigned positions. One or ordinary skill in the art could not determine why the applicant’s invention is assigning a position to a progressing entity if they are then immediately released from said assigned position, along with every other position being released. Next, the limitation requires “wherein, in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each level of respective ARIT in said age ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”. First, the claim has not previously required that the ARIT data structure of the self=compacting relational multi-level tree system have a level of respective ARIT. Instead, the claim required that the ARIT data structure have desire level, and these desire level have age ranges. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what the applicant means by “a level of respective ARIT” as recited in this limitation. Second, if one assumes that the claimed “a level of respective ARIT” means the age range desire levels, then one or ordinary skill in the art would realize that for one or more entities’ age advancement to exceed each the age ranges in each respective desire level in said ARIT data structure, that said one or more persons must have aged out of all of the ARIT data structure. Which is fine. However, the claim does not state what is done should this event occur. Thus, one of ordinary skill the art would be left to wonder what the applicant’s invention does when this occurs. This last wherein clause is part of step d of the claim. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect this clause to be associated in any way with the periodically progressing of step e of the claims. However, if it is not part of step e, then the claim does not describe what occurs based on this eventuality in step d. Given, that the interpretation of each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “periodically progressing by said processor each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT basing on an interval indication, should during the age advancement of entities' age be desired wherein, said periodic progressions of each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT also result in activities of ultimately graduating all entities assigned out of said entire self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein, in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each level of respective ARIT in said age ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. The appilicant has already described in the previous wherein clause of step d, that one or more entities can exceeding each age range in the desire levels of the ARIT. So why is the applicant adding a new step discussing the same issue. Is step e not really a new step that is being performed and instead a continuation of the wherein clause of step d? Was the last wherein clause of step d, not supposed to be part of step d, and instead was intended to be part of new step e. If so, then the beginning of the limitation which recites “periodically progressing” does not have proper antecedent basis and it should say “the periodically progress” to indicate that it is still discussing the periodic progressing described in step d. If this is a new periodically progressing step that occurs after the periodically progressing of step d, then one of ordinary skill in the art would not now how to perform such a new periodically progressing step. The periodically progressing of step d, resulted in the releasing of every assigned position in the ARIT data structure. None of these positions have been reassigned after said releasing. Without a reassigning step occurring before this new periodically progressing step, it would not appear to be possible to do any type of new progressing. Additionally, the claimed “an interval indication” in this step does not have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “an interval indication” of step d. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether the applicant’s intends the progression in step e to be performed on the same interval indication as step d, or whether step e is performed using a new and different interval. In either case, the terms “an interval indication” is a relative term which one of ordinary skill in the art could not determine what the range of such an interval is intended to be, as describe above, with regards to the “an interval indication” of step d. Likewise, the phrase “should during the age advancement of entities’ age be desire” is indefinite, as describe above with regards to the same limitation in step d. Additionally, the terms “next successive higher level of ARIT” and “each level of respective ARIT” are indefinite because the ARIT data structure of the created self-compacting relational multi-level tree does not have a higher level of ARIT or respective ARIT. Instead, it contains desire levels which age ranges as describe above with respect to step d. Aside from these limitations, it would appear that step d merely recites an intended result of performing the progressions of step c, in that, assuming the releasing of all positions that occur after each progression are somehow reassigned, then many, many, years down the road, if no new younger entities are being added, then eventually all entities will graduate outs of the ARIT data structure of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree. One of ordinary skill in the art would also realize that being an intended result of the progression of step d, none of the limitations recited in step e are intended to limit the scope of the claimed system. Given, that the interpretation of each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “through ultimately graduating by said processor all entities assigned to each prioritized age-ordered position out of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein said ultimately graduating of all assigned to each prioritized age-ordered position out of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions result in activities of obviating all entities assigned to each prioritized age- ordered position from indefinitely holding on to position at the top of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system wherein each prioritized age-ordered position assigned in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system could be accorded with fair distribution of re-prioritizing age-ordered position”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended metes and bounds of this limitation. It is labeled as step f of the claim, which would indicate that it is a new step, .However, the limitation begins with “through ultimately graduating by said processor all entities assigned to each prioritized age-ordered position out of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions” which appears, assuming that “ultimately graduating” is intended to recite “the ultimately graduating” and not a new graduating step that is expected to be perform, to merely be further describing the ultimately graduating recited in step e, which is an intended result of the progressing of step d. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that none of the limitations recited in step f limit the scope of the claimed invention. Given, that the interpretation of each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 further recites: “through further encapsulated by said processor Head Start Young Generation (HSYG) objectives that is fueled by token subscription donations from the old and prioritized qualifying entities in said self-compacting relational multi- level tree system with a backward re-empowerment chain effects to the young and energetic entities in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system basing on youngest age priorities wherein said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system result in a real-world context of delivering Pareto Efficiency in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. This limitation is identified as a new step being performed by the applicant’s invention. However, the limitation begins with “through further encapsulated”. However, the claim has never previously recited “encapsulating anything”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to interpret the phrase “through further encapsulated”. Is it supposed to be further limiting an encapsulating step that the applicant has inadvertently omitted from the claim? Is it supposed to be an encapsulating step being performed by the claimed invention? Perhaps, it is merely describing an intended use of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree that is created and thus not limit the scope of the claim. A review of the applicant’s specification finds that the Head Start Young Generation (objectives) fueled by token subscription donations would be part of a fair distribution system with specific rules an objective and not part of the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system created. According to the applicant’s disclosure the fair distribution system with the required objective can use the claimed self-compacting relational multi-level tree system as part of the fair distribution system, but there is no support in the applicant’s disclosure for the self-compacting relational multi-level tree system comprising the fair distribution system. As such, the only way one of ordinary skill in the art can interpret the limitation without the limitation resulting in 112(a) new matter issues is that the entire limitation is reciting an intended use of the claimed self-compacting relational multi-level tree system and, as such, none of the limitation in step g limit the scope of the invention which is to a self-compacting relational multi-level tree system. Given, that the interpretation of each of these limitation results in an invention of a different scope, it is clear that this limitation of claims 20 and 34 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
As such, it is clear that independent claims 20 and 34 are replete with 35 USC 112(b) issues that make it nearly impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended metes and bounds of the invention as claimed. Therefore, independent claims 20 and 34 are clearly indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 21 and 35-38 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 20-21 are directed to an apparatus which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 20 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
creating a self-compacting relational multi-level tree system by dissecting large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions into optimal sizes of flat-top multi-level trees inside the desire levels of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system, starting with at least two (2) levels, wherein other levels more than two (2) could be desired;
defining the desire levels of said ARIT data structure of in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system above a legal threshold age of 17 years old;
wherein, the levels of the age ranges interval tabulation data structure in an exemplary relational multi-level tree system comprise more than two (2) levels should eight (8) levels of ARIT is desired, wherein other combination of age range and levels of age ranges interval could be desired,
wherein depending on technical application a typical age ranges interval tabulation data structure in an exemplary relational multi-level tree system could comprise; the first level corresponds to age range of 18-26;the second level corresponds to age range of 27-35;the third level corresponds to age range of 36-44;the fourth level corresponds to age range of 45-53;the fifth level corresponds to age range of 54-62;the sixth level corresponds to age range of 63-71;the seventh level corresponds to age range of 72-80;the eighth level corresponds to age range of 81-90; and wherein, the age range within each ARIT is more than one (1) year should nine (9) years is desired,
constructing and using a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) for size and measurement considerations to structurally govern the sizes of multi-level trees with endless broadening base limit by limiting how big the base limit of planned multi-level trees could grow;
presorting sorting entities' age priorities information into a presorted ordered age priority sequence, prioritizes each entity into said prioritized age-ordered positions in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system sequentially from said presorted ordered age priority sequence, periodically progressing each prioritized age-ordered position assigned in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system onto the next successive higher level of ARIT on an interval indications should during the age advancement of entities' age be desired wherein, said periodic progressions of each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT result in activities of releasing all prioritized age-ordered positions throughout said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein, in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each level of respective ARIT in said age ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system;
periodically progressing each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT basing on an interval indication, should during the age advancement of entities' age be desired wherein, said periodic progressions of each prioritized age-ordered position assigned onto the next successive higher level of ARIT also result in activities of ultimately graduating all entities assigned out of said entire self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein, in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each level of respective ARIT in said age ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system;
through ultimately graduating all entities assigned to each prioritized age-ordered position out of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein said ultimately graduating of all assigned to each prioritized age-ordered position out of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions result in activities of obviating all entities assigned to each prioritized age- ordered position from indefinitely holding on to position at the top of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system wherein each prioritized age-ordered position assigned in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system could be accorded with fair distribution of re-prioritizing age-ordered position ;
throughout said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions wherein said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system obviates all entities from indefinitely holding on to position at the top of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system for the first time;
through further encapsulated Head Start Young Generation (HSYG) objectives that is fueled by token subscription donations from the old and prioritized qualifying entities in said self-compacting relational multi- level tree system with a backward re-empowerment chain effects to the young and energetic entities in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system basing on youngest age priorities wherein said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system result in a real-world context of delivering Pareto Efficiency in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system.
The limitations of claim 20 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it recites organizing relationships between people in a multi-level tree based on age and moving people to different age levels as they age Additionally, the limitations of claim 20 as detailed above, as drafted, can be said to recite commercial or legal interactions because as set forth in the claim, the multi-level tree is intended to be used in advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors where Head Start Young Generation (HSYG) objectives are fueled by token subscription donations from the old and prioritized qualifying entities. Finally, the limitations of claim 20 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea because each of the claimed steps could be performed by the human mind and/or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite the “additional elements of a processor and a database (e.g., a entities' database) which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which is merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor and a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (as evidenced from paragraphs 6-7, 19, and 21 of the applicant’s specification which provides no indication or description that would indicate that it is anything other than a general-purpose computer processor and the Affinity v. Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claim 21 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the constructing of the LSAC and its use, adds an additional step of tabulating the ARIT, further limiting the types of flat-top multi-level trees in the ARIT, further limiting the pre-sorting, further limiting construction the LSAC and the use of the LSAC with respect to the ARIT data structure, further limiting the optimal sizes of the flat-top multi-level tree; further limiting the prioritizing of the positions and the placement of the positions within the ARIT data structure, further limiting the releasing, further limiting the graduating, and further limiting the further encapsulate which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 21), and therefore only limit the application of the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes) and are “directed to” said abstract idea without introducing any new “additional elements” (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes), and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 20-21 are not patent eligible.
Claims 34-38 are directed to an apparatus which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 34 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
defining an optimal numbers of Age Ranges Interval Tabulation (ARIT) corresponding to levels of an age ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system above a legal threshold age of 17 years old, wherein said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system consists of flat-top and adjacent flat-top multi-level trees inside respective ARIT;
constructing said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system through dissecting large quantities of prioritized age-ordered positions into optimal size of multi-level trees inside respective ARIT in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system;
pre-sorting entities' age information into a presorted ordered age priority sequence to be assigned inside respective the respective ARIT in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system;
assigning prioritized age-ordered positions inside respective ARIT in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system from said presorted ordered age priority sequence;
constructing the optimal size of the flat-top multi-level tree and the number of adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required to be constructed inside each respective ARIT based on a total number of prioritized age-ordered positions to be prioritized inside each respective ARIT with optimal size and measurement considerations and comparison made in accordance with a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) constructions, wherein the optimal sizes of the flat-top multi-level tree and adjacent flat-top multi-level trees constructed are differences between two selected levels of level's accumulative strength parameter indications from said LSAC constructed and wherein the number of the flat-top and adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required to be constructed inside each respective ARIT is the total number of entities to be prioritized inside each respective ARIT sequentially from said presorted ordered age priority sequence;
constructing a single flat-top multi-level tree or multiple adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required inside each respective ARIT is based on the numbers of adjacent flat-top multi-level trees needed to be constructed inside each respective ARIT with considerations and comparison made in accordance with said LSAC constructions;
prioritizing prioritize age-ordered positions sequentially from said presorted ordered age priority sequence in a single flat-top multi- level tree or multiple adjacent flat-top multi-level trees inside each respective ARIT by applying top/down or adjacent-top/down allocation of prioritized age-ordered positions respectively until, each prioritized age-ordered position in each respective ARIT is assigned sequentially from said presorted ordered age priority sequence;
applying periodically releasing all prioritized age-ordered positions assigned onto a next higher position in the next successive ARIT in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system during the age advancement of entities in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each level of respective ARIT in the respective age ranges interval tabulation data structure in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system
providing proves of detailing out the respective prioritized age- ordered positions in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system for accountability purposes;
ultimately graduating all entities assigned in each prioritized age-ordered positions out of said entire self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions in the event of one or more entities' age advancement exceeded each ARIT in the respective rage ranges interval tabulation data structure of said self- compacting relational multi-level tree system;
according each prioritized age-ordered positions assigned in said entire self-compacting relational multi-level tree system progressions fair distribution of re-prioritizing age-ordered position throughout said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system; and
encapsulating Head Start Young Generation (HSYG) objectives that is fueled by token subscription donations from the old and prioritized qualifying entities in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system with a backward re- empowerment chain effects to the young and energetic entities in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system basing on youngest age priorities wherein said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system result in a real-world context of delivering Pareto Efficiency in said self-compacting relational multi-level tree system.
The limitations of claim 34 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it recites organizing relationships between people in a multi-level tree based on age and moving people to different age levels as they age Additionally, the limitations of claim 20 as detailed above, as drafted, can be said to recite commercial or legal interactions because as set forth in the claim, the multi-level tree is intended to be used in advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors where Head Start Young Generation (HSYG) objectives are fueled by token subscription donations from the old and prioritized qualifying entities. Finally, the limitations of claim 20 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea because each of the claimed steps could be performed by the human mind and/or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite the “additional elements of a processor which is a generic computer component of a general-purpose computer which is merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (as evidenced from paragraphs 6-7, 19, and 21 of the applicant’s specification which provides no indication or description that would indicate that it is anything other than a general-purpose computer processor); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 35-38 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the defining of the level of the age ranges tabulation data structure which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 35); further limiting the Level Strength Analysis Chart which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 36); further limiting the pre-sorting which is considered part of the abstract idea and adding a new “additional element:” of a database which is a generic computer component as per the Affinity v. Capital one decision (Claim 37); and adding an additional step of defining the exponential empowerment allocation and defining value of the contribution strength and value of the contribution weight which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 38), and therefore only limit the application of the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes) and do not introduce any new “additional elements” and as such “directed to” said abstract idea without introducing any new “additional elements” (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes), and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 34-38 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 and 34-38 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to overcome the Claim Objections, the 35 USC 112 first paragraph rejections, the 35 USC 112 second paragraph rejection, and the 35 USC 101 rejections, identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art: The closest prior art is Soroca (PGPUB: 20100063877) and Data Structures (“csci210: Data Structures” http://www.bowdoin.edu/~ltoma/teaching/ cs210/spring09/Slides/210-Trees.pdf, 2009, pages 1-41 which discloses a structured method for forming a relational multi-level tree system and progressing entities’ positions in the relational multi-level tree system into positions in a next successive higher level in the relational multi-level tree system for effecting fair distributions to the entities and a relational multi-level tree system for effecting fair distributions to contributing entities positioned in the relational multi-level tree system, comprising:
a database containing entity information of the contributing entities, wherein the entity information includes age information of the contributing entities and other information that is useful to schedule fair distributions;
defining, by a processor, age range interval tabulations (ARIT) above a threshold age, and an optimal number of ARITs corresponding to levels of an age ranges tabulation data structure of the relational multi-level tree system, wherein the relational multi-level tree system comprises flat-top or adjacent flat-top multi-level trees within respective ARITs of the age ranges tabulation data structure;
determining, by the processor, a number of positions for assigning the contributing entities into respective levels of the ARIT in the age ranges tabulation data structure, wherein: the age ranges tabulation data structure comprising x levels of ARIT based on the age ranges of contributing entities, wherein 1 is the lowest level of the ARIT of the relational multi-level tree system and corresponds to the lowest ARIT of the relational multi-level tree system, x is the highest level of the ARIT of the relational multi-level tree system and corresponds to the highest ARIT of the relational multi-level tree system, and level i + 1 is a next higher level than an ith level, where i is from 1 to x-1, and corresponds to the next higher ARIT of the relational multi-level tree system;
pre-sorting, by the processor, the contributing entities’ position assignments in the relational multi-level tree system based on age ordered priorities;
assign, using the ordered age priority sequence, the pre-sorted contributing entities in their respective ARITs which correspond to the levels in the age ranges tabulation data structure by assignment of the positions of the contributing entities into the flat-top or adjacent flat-top multi-level trees, and wherein assigning the pre-sorted contributing entities in the respective ARIT comprises:
determining, by the processor, optimal sizes of the flat-top multi-level trees and number of the adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required to be constructed within the respective ARIT based on a total number of the contributing entities to be positioned inside respective ARITs with optimal size and measurement considerations;
determining an optimal size of the flat-top multi-level tree and the number of adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required to be constructed within the respective ARIT based on a total number of contributing entities to be positioned in the respective ARIT with optimal size and measurement considerations, and wherein the number of the flat-top and adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required to be constructed within the respective ARIT is computed by dividing the total number of contributing entities to be positioned in the respective ARIT by the optimal sizes of the flat- top multi-level tree,
constructing a single flat-top multi-level tree or multiple adjacent flat-top multi-level trees within the respective ARIT based on the optimal size of the flat-top multi-level tree and number of adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required to be constructed within the respective ARIT
applying, by the processor, top/down assignment of the positions of the contributing entities for constructing the flat-top multi-level trees within the respective ARITs which correspond to the levels in the age ranges;
applying, by the processor, adjacent-top/down assignment of the positions of the contributing entities for constructing the adjacent flat-top multi-level trees within the respective ARITs;
performing, by the processor, fair distributions to respective contributing entities based on a contributing strength of a contributing entity and a contributing weight of a contributing entity
However, the examiner has been unable to find prior art that discloses the use of an ARIT and LSAC in constructing a multi-level tree formation. Thus, the examiner has been unable to find prior art that would be obvious to combine with the prior art of Soroca and Data Structures to teach the following limitations without the use of impermissible hindsight:
construct and use a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) governing the optimal sizes of multi-level tree formations;
wherein, the exponential value of a level 0 in the LSAC used for constructing the LSAC is at least 20; (examiner note: 20=1)
when the optimal sizes of the flat-top multi-level trees and number of adjacent flat-top multi-level trees required to be constructed within each respective ARIT, that the optimal size and measurement considerations are made in accordance with a Level Strength Analysis Chart (LSAC) constructions, wherein the optimal sizes of the flat-top multi- level tree and adjacent flat-top multi-level trees are differences between two selected levels of level's accumulative strength parameter indications form the LSAC constructed;
periodically reassigning positions of contributing entities into the next higher ARIT in the relational multi-level tree system based on an interval indications; and
periodically graduating contributing entities out of each respective ARIT in the relational multi-levels tree system, wherein one or more contributing entities' age exceeded each level of the ARIT in the age ranges tabulation data structure of the relational multi-levels tree system.
As such, claims 20-21 and 34-38 are would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim Objections, the 35 USC 112 first paragraph rejections, the 35 USC 112 second paragraph rejection, and the 35 USC 101 rejections, identified above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s asserts that the claim amendments are all supported by the applicant’s disclosure. The examiner disagrees. As detailed in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection the amendments have introduced new matter.
The applicant asserts that the claims recite unconventional a hard technical solutions that involve making improvements other technological field of multi-level structural engineering knowledge and as such does not recite the identified abstract idea and, as such, should overcome the 101 rejections. The examiner strongly disagrees. Under Step 2a, Prong 1, when identifying the recited abstract idea it is immaterial whether the claims recite unconventional a hard technical solutions that involve making improvements other technological field. Such, consideration are performed only after an abstract idea has been identified Step 2a, Prong 1. Thus, the applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite the identified abstract idea is not convincing the rejections have been maintained.
Assuming the applicant intended to argue that the claims recite unconventional hard technical solutions that involve making improvements other technological field and, as such, transform any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or are considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. The examiner disagrees. In order to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, the unconventional hard technical solutions that involve making improvements other technological field must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using the “additional elements”. In order to overcome a 101 rejection under Step 2b, it is the “additional elements” of the claim that must be considered “significantly more” than the abstract idea. “Additional elements” are defined as those limitations of the claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements of the claims are a processor and a database which are merely generic computer components of a general-purpose computer. These “additional elements” of the instant claims are merely used to apply the abstract idea. As such, these “additional elements” of the claim are incapable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Likewise, these “additional elements” of the claims are incapable of being considered significantly more under Step 2b. As such, if as the applicant argues the claims recite are unconventional hard technical solutions that involve making improvements other technological field of multi-level structural engineering knowledge, these unconventional hard technical solutions that make improvements in the technological field of multi-level structural engineer knowledge are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely being applied by the general-purpose computer with generic computer components. Unconventional hard technical solutions that involve making improvements other technological fields of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Irrespective of how unconventional an abstract idea is it is still an abstract idea which is ineligible subject matter. Likewise, irrespective of how hard it was to come up with the technical solutions embodied in the abstract idea, the abstract idea is no less abstract, and these are solutions rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which makes them improvements to ineligible subject matter. Finally, irrespective of whether one considered multi-level structural engineering knowledge to be a technological field, if said knowledge was merely used to device the abstract idea, it is merely an improvement to an abstract idea that was devised with such knowledge which is an improvement to ineligible subject matter. Since the argued improvement is rooted solely in the abstract idea which is then merely applied using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components it is incapable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and incapable of being considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The examiner appreciates the applicant’s explanation of MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.05(e), the Vanda memo, the 2019 PEG, and the Mayo/Alice test. However, the applicant’s explanation is based on the applicant misconstruing what is being disclosed each and every one of these documents. In each of these documents, it is the “additional elements” of the claims that must recite the technical improvement, the “additional elements” being used in a meaningful way other than merely applying the abstract idea, the “additional elements” that provide the inventive concept, the “additional elements” that integrate the exception into a practical application, the “additional elements that are considered significantly more. Thus, if one misconstrues the meaning of the term “additional elements” in these documents they will arrive at the same conclusion as the applicant and believe that the claims should overcome the 101 rejections. However, when one understands the definition of “additional elements”, as used in these documents, then one quickly realizes that each and everyone of these documents supports the examiner conclusion that the claims do not overcome the 101 rejections. The definition of “additional elements” as used in the context of each of these documents is those elements of a claim which are not included as part of the abstract idea itself. Perhaps the easiest way to find this definition is by reading MPEP 2106(I) which explains that: “Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception”. This part of MPEP 2106(I) clearly describes how a claim which recites an abstract idea can still be patent eligible subject matter. However, the only way in which a claim which recites an abstract idea can be patent eligible is if “the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception”. Or perhaps, it is more easily determined by reading the original Alice decision where it states that the “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]’”. MPEP 2106.05(a) further explains this when it state “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) where it states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”. When reading the cited documents using the proper interpretation of the term “additional elements”, it is clear that the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622