DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and is in response to communications filed on 12/03/2025 in which claims 1-64 have been cancelled thus far. This leaves claims 65-75 added as new claims and as being presented for examination. All claims are addressed in the response.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s provisional application 62/649,883, filed on 3/29/2018.
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.
Claim 65 is 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. The limitation, “filing system (RMS) not able to act outside a sector;” doesn’t appear to be supported in the specification. There’s nothing in the specification which describes what a “sector” is in a way that makes sense of this limitation. Applicant can remedy this issue by providing a reference to where this is described in the specification or amend the claims.
Claim 65 also recites the following limitation: “a fourth system including a one-count computer processor…” However, this doesn’t appear to be supported in the specification. A search was done for “one-count” or “processor”, but neither of these terms could be found. Applicant can remedy this issue by providing a reference to where this is described in the specification or amend the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a seventh system of LSL-1 class label-frames storage where the SR identity storage includes LSL-3 unique identifiers" in middle of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because an “identity storage” doesn’t show up anywhere before this. For examination purposes, the “LSL-1 class label-frames storage” is interpreted as an “SR identity storage”, but because it has a very different name, it’s not clear.
Claims 65-75 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language.
Claims contains numerous limitations containing abstract, and subjective language. For instance, consider the following limitations below:
Claim 65 recites “not able to act outside a sector”, but there’s no steps that clarify why the linear data structure record management and filing system isn’t able to act outside of a sector, or even what a “sector” means.
Claim 65 recites “class specific character assignments”, but there aren’t any classes which are specified, which implies that this is intended use. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as any class assignment to characters.
There’s a limitation in claim 65 which recites, “reusable field set links;” but reusability is intended use, because there’s no limitation that describes how they are reusable or if they are reused for a specific purpose in the claims.
Claim 65 recites, “responsive to new data and further includes odd/even edge character data Switches (DS) activating send or receive circuits to send or receive pre- and post-transaction of the new data and information exchanges;” which is intended use because first, there’s no limitation which actively receives data. Therefore, it’s unclear whether new data is ever received or from where it could be received. Also, it’s intended use “to send or receive” because this isn’t an active step based on not clearly receiving new data, and “to send or receive” isn’t clear that the data ever gets sent or received. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as a general input or output computing component.
Claim 65 continues: “GRDB field sets that replace programmed non-reusable fields” which isn’t clear because the claims don’t specify with what the non-reusable fields are replaced. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as a general monitoring system.
Claim 65 recites, “transforms a user role from completion of workplace functions to govern a virtual assistant of the workplace functions including knowledge-to-data, and data-to-machine knowledge;” which is indefinite because “to govern” is intended use unless Applicant can point to how this is achieved within the system.
Claim 65 recites, “provide the virtual-assistant, incorporate best-practice rules, and network decision-makers sites, peer users and organization”, but there’s nothing that expounds upon how these are achieved in the claims. “Best-practice” is also an indefinite term because there’s nothing that defines “best practice.”
In conclusion, the structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited:
Runchey et al. Patent No. 9189501
Bruestle et al. Patent No. 9489414
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 65-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea as indicated below in Step 2A Prong One. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons state below for Step 2A Prong Two. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons stated below for Step 2B.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
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. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claims 65-75 are directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim recites in part:
A system comprising: a non-transitory data storage medium having computer executable code stored thereon and one or more circuits configured to execute the computer executable code
…
wherein the computer executable code comprises:
a first system … generates a second memory stored, uninterrupted, linear data structure record management and filing system (RMS) not able to act outside a sector;
a second system of three lexicographic string language (LSL) classes of string sets includes mono character string constructs, three single character augmented string lengths, class specific character assignments, character order, string lengths and applications;
a third system of three GRDB inexhaustible string management algorithms includes rule 1 structures linear data structure objects with matched edges that embed the matched edges and rule 2 extensions of shared edge arrays;
a fourth system including … systematizes plain text numeric identifiers, which numerically map correlative string structure and string structured storage (SS&SSS) Lexicographic Storage Language (LSL) LSL-1, LSL-2, LSL-3 class records for access thereof, the LSL-1 plain text identifiers including GRDB layout of reusable field set links;
a fifth system including a plurality of LSL-1 label storage frames natural language programming tools (NLP-tools) and the GRDB layout of reusable field set links;
a sixth system including an LSL-1 site activated system record (SR), which includes automated data and information exchanges responsive to new data and further includes odd/even edge character data Switches (DS) activating send or receive circuits to send or receive pre- and post-transaction of the new data and information exchanges;
a seventh system of LSL-1 class label-frames storage where the SR identity storage includes LSL-3 unique identifiers and identity title, wherein said SR-identifiers uniquely identify specialized functions, LSL-2 databases and LSL-3 matrix/panel structures;
an eighth system of the LSL and SS&SSS …;
a ninth system including LSL-1 AB characters that include SR operational-platforms warehouse data, programs, and transaction records, and further includes CD SR NLP-tool labels that frame elements of the AB SR operational-platforms; and
a tenth system that of the LSL-1 including a function-specific SR that transforms a user role from completion of workplace functions to govern a virtual assistant of the workplace functions including knowledge-to-data, and data-to-machine knowledge;
…, provide the virtual-assistant, incorporate best-practice rules, and network decision-makers sites, peer users and organization.
The limitations above are broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form or mental evaluation or judgement. For example, one can mentally perform the functions above with abstract systems in place using data observation and judgment to organize data in a filesystem coupled with validation of said data using vague methods such as “best-practice rules.” Consistent with the specification as in the background in pages 1 and 2 this process has also been performed in other various types of information technology systems.
PRONG TWO: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The …
a non-transitory data storage medium having computer executable code stored thereon and one or more circuits configured to execute the computer executable code;
wherein the computer executable code comprises:
… computer-readable first-memory stored Generic Relational Database (GRDB) … second memory stored… send or receive circuits … wherein the second memory stored, uninterrupted, linear data structure RMS … a one-count computer processor that …
are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitations of “that includes hierarchal levels of forward metadata (FMD) and correlative reverse metadata (RMD) stored as brackets data and further, the eighth system programming reusable GRDB field sets that replace programmed non-reusable fields”, “stored Generic Relational Database (GRDB) generates a second memory stored, uninterrupted, linear data structure record management and filing system (RMS) not able to act outside a sector”, “wherein the second memory stored, uninterrupted, linear data structure RMS includes three interactive linear data structure graphs that define, integrate, operate active-database, peer-network, digitize enterprise-records, automate and validate, provide a machine-algorithm” as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as a form of electronic recordkeeping.
The claim limitations are abstract idea that are performed by the stated computing components, but general computer components such as these don’t provide integration into a practical application. The specification offers specific descriptions, but the claims themselves don’t adequately tie the computing components in with the abstract mental ideas in order to integrate the elements into a practical application. Accordingly, these recitations represent further mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, by invoking generic computer components as a tool under MPEP 2106.05(f) or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of computing components under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination and taking the claim as a whole, there still is not integration into a practical application. The claims also don’t appear to improve the functioning of a computer or require the use of a specific machine. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
As per MPEP 2106.05(II) the considerations discussed above for mere instructions to apply the exception and merely linking to a field of use are carried over for Step 2B.
The computing components as stated above represent the means on which to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Similarly, the abstract ideas are performed by said computing components, fand also remain mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of … mono character string constructs, three single character augmented string lengths, class specific character assignments, character order, string lengths and applications, … of three GRDB inexhaustible string management algorithms includes rule 1 structures linear data structure objects with matched edges, … including a one-count computer processor that systematizes plain text numeric identifiers, … the LSL-1 plain text identifiers including GRDB layout of reusable field set links, … including a plurality of LSL-1 label storage frames natural language programming tools (NLP-tools) and the GRDB layout of reusable field set links, … of LSL-1 class label-frames storage where the SR identity storage includes LSL-3 unique identifiers and identity title, … of the LSL and SS&SSS that includes hierarchal levels of forward metadata (FMD) and correlative reverse metadata (RMD) stored as brackets data and further, the eighth system, … including LSL-1 AB characters that include SR operational-platforms warehouse data, programs, and transaction records, and further includes CD SR NLP-tool labels, … that of the LSL-1 including a function-specific SR, …. Additionally, this appears to be admitted and described in the specification as well-understood, routine, and conventional including in the background in pages 1 and 2 as commercially available products such as various types of information technology systems. As stated under MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A), “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements … as a commercially available product …”
Even considering these additional elements as a combination and taking the claim as a whole, they do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim doesn’t include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 66-75 is dependent on claim 65, and includes many of the same systems, but doesn’t have any data that is received where the data goes through any transformations which are described by these various systems whereby a meaningful output is presented. For this reason, the claims don’t provide an integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is further mental activity in the form of observing data and judging coupled with technical language and computing components that are recited in a general manner that doesn’t amount to any discernable functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 65-75 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception, 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Thanks be to Applicant for addressing previous rejections laid out in the rejection of 12/03/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the non-transitory storage system being represented in the specification has been fully considered and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “using a GRDB to generate an uninterrupted, linear data structure RMS is an operation that is not capable of being performed in the human mind and accordingly does not recite a mental process.”
In response: The 101 rejection for judicial exception has been updated based on the new claims. Using a GRDB to generate a linear data structure is still classified as a mental process because it’s data organization with an addition of a type of data such as a linear data structure. Furthermore, the claims are filled with computing components, but it’s not clear what constitutes as significantly more within this claim set
because it’s not clear what improvement or what practical application is achieved from the steps within the claims.
Ultimately, the rejections have been updated to map to the new claims. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 65-75 have been considered but are generally moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any previous arguments applied in the prior rejection of record specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bauer et al. US 20120330567 A1 teaches analyzing datasets, such as large data sets output from nucleic acid sequencing technologies (Abstract).
Runchey et al. US 20130204872 A1
Dingman et al. US 6795868 B1 teaches a transformation engine that iterates through one or more data sources, transforms data received from the data sources, and stores the output to one or more data targets (Abstract).
Edwards et al. US 6353820 B1 teaches a system and method that enhances the index processing performance of a multi-layer relational database manager by expanding the code generation component layer of the database manager to include an index processing performance enhancing subroutine designed to execute functions performed by lower component layers substantially faster than if the functions were executed by such lower component layers (Abstract).
Steiner et al. US 20090132587 A1 teaches managing electronic content includes obtaining the content and associating top level contents of the obtained content with a deployment set (Abstract).
Bhatia et al. US 20060206518 A1 teaches parsing a data file having data nodes arranged in a hierarchal structure by sequentially processing the data nodes to generate parsing events and calling back at least one parsing event to a scanner, the scanner processing the at least one parsing event by calling at least one corresponding function (Abstract).
Hongji Yang, Zhan Cui and P. O'Brien, "Extracting ontologies from legacy systems for understanding and re-engineering," Proceedings. Twenty-Third Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (Cat. No.99CB37032), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 1999, pp. 21-26, doi: 10.1109/CMPSAC.1999.812512.
Malak et al. US 20180341839 A1 teaches sentiment analysis in a display to enable a user to understand the meaning of words in the data ([0041]).
McGee et al. US 20140310243 A1 teaches a systemic, adaptive procedural template comprised of common building blocks forming template frameworks i.e., self-organizing, mutually reinforcing service, system, process, procedure components derived situational understanding, state meta data signaling replication systems consisting of TCP/IP heartbeat, heartbeat messages signaling during micro-macro report cycles of state meta-data sync deltas; time stamped prior to data fusion-center insertion followed by reports aggregated, recalculated, relayed through synchronization, conversion gateways then merged into macro-cycle reports where metrics, metering are described by using Paul Revere meme linear, sequential hop count, water-drop in-pond meme geo-spatial temporal intensity measures, metrics recording sync deltas change across time/space viewed on applique displays using Russian Matryoshka doll techniques where each view adds to, changes the nature, meaning of composite views while retaining original applique views unique qualities as decision support aids in best effort, best practice by federated groups.
Itagaki et al. US 20120163150 A1 teaches in abstract, a storage that readably migrates a content of data from one recording medium to another over generations in a readable manner and provides the contents of the records from a current recording medium.
Pyers et al. US 20170255749 A1 teaches distributing a first person's first health care record to a plurality of second health care providers to facilitate receipt of a plurality of second health care records including, for example, the second opinions of the plurality of second health care providers (Abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Ellis whose telephone number is (571)270-3443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571)270-0474. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
January 14, 2026
/MATTHEW J ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152