DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-21 and 24-37 have been examined.
Claims 2-3 and 22-23 have been canceled by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to Tadi does not teach the specific integration of a persistently accessible review votes interface within a continuously adjustable ballot environment. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tadi disclose: the visible portion of the associated ballot (i.e. information) displaying at least a first race or ballot issue and a portion of a second race or ballot issue (i.e. information), and the visible portion of the associated ballot is continuously adjustable based on movement of the virtual reality device (See paragraph 0131). Underhill discloses electronic ballot (See paragraph 0035). Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained with respect to Tadi reference.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 1 and 4-20, in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a voting server configured…for an election; a virtual reality device…configured to authorized…; a gesture controller…configured to monitor…; and a tabulation server…that receives…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 and 4-21 and 24-37 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.
With respect to claim 1, “a voting server configured…for an election; a virtual reality device…configured to authorized…; a gesture controller…configured to monitor…; and a tabulation server…that receives…” invoke 112(f) as described above. The claim is rejected as while the specification, indeed, discloses the recited terms, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function.
Claims 1 and 21 recite “wherein voter input…and remains persistently accessible as a floating interface element within the display regardless of ballot position” However, this limitation was not described in the specification.
Specification discloses: A voter may make selections on the virtual ballot, as will be discussed in more detail with respect to FIGs. 4A through 4C, and may select a review votes 350 selection upon voting for each of the items on the virtual ballot 305. In such a system, a voter may navigate through one or more votes that are to be made in an election at the voter interface 300. (See paragraph 0036) but does not describe that voter input remains persistently accessible as a floating interface element within the display regardless of ballot position.
Claims 4-20 and 24-37 are also rejected as each depends from claims 1 and 21 respectively.
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 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 such as “a voting server configured…for an election; a virtual reality device…configured to authorized…; a gesture controller…configured to monitor…; and a tabulation server…that receives…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the limitations use a generic placeholder, such as “server”, “device”, and controller” coupled with functional language, and are not modified with sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 4-20 are also rejected as each depends from claims 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 14-16, 19-20, 21, 24-26 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underhill (US 20190057567) in view of BROCKHOUSE (US 20140231513) and in further view of TADI (US 20180239430), BOLDIN (WO2004/038632) and in view of Miyaki (US 20190250773).
With respect to claims 1 and 21 Underhill discloses:
a voting server configured with ballot information for an election (See paragraph 0035);
a virtual reality device coupled with the voting server and configured to authorize a voting session for a voter, present an associated ballot to the voter, receive voter selections for two or more items (i.e. ballot questions, user input to express a given user’s vote on each ballot questions) on the ballot, and provide the received voter selections to the voting server (See paragraph 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0064 and 0100);
a gesture controller coupled with the virtual reality device configured to capture the voter selections for the one or more items on the ballot (See paragraph 0064, 0100 and 0110);
a tabulation server coupled with the voting server that receives the voter selections from the voting server and tabulates the received voter selections (See paragraph 0036 and 0052-0053).
Underhill does not explicitly disclose: server configured with voter precinct information; display an indication of each voter selection adjacent to each selected item on the ballot and wherein the list of voter selection is displayed by the device responsive to a voter input to review votes; monitor one or more non-contact hand gestures of the voter for display by the virtual reality device on the displayed ballot; wherein the voter input to review votes is available for selection by the voter at any time during presentation of a visible portion of the associated ballot to the voter, the visible portion of the associated ballot displaying at least a first race or ballot issue and a portion of a second race or ballot issue, and the visible portion of the associated ballot moves based on movement of the virtual reality device
BROCKHOUSE discloses: server configured with voter precinct information (See paragraph 0053, 0100-0101 and Fig 5); display an indication of each voter selection adjacent to each selected item on the ballot; displaying a list of voter selections for the two or more items on the ballot after receiving the voter selections; receive a voter verification of the list of voter selections; and wherein the list of voter selection is displayed by the device responsive to a voter input to review votes (See paragraph 103-105 Fig 15D-F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill reference with BROCKHOUSE reference in order to accurately compile voting information.
Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE does not explicitly disclose: monitor one or more non-contact hand gestures of the voter for display by the virtual reality device on the displayed ballot; wherein the voter input to review votes is available for selection by the voter at any time during presentation of a visible portion of the associated ballot to the voter, the visible portion of the associated ballot displaying at least a first race or ballot issue and a portion of a second race or ballot issue, and the visible portion of the associated ballot is continuously adjustable based on movement of the virtual reality device.
TADI discloses: monitor one or more non-contact hand gestures of the voter for display by the virtual reality device on the displayed ballot (See paragraph 0191-0194); the visible portion of the associated ballot (i.e. information) displaying at least a first race or ballot issue and a portion of a second race or ballot issue (i.e. information), and the visible portion of the associated ballot is continuously adjustable based on movement of the virtual reality device (See paragraph 0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill and BROCKHOUSE references with the TADI reference in order to increase user convenience.
Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI does not explicitly disclose: wherein the list of voter selection is displayed by the device responsive to a voter input to review votes; wherein the voter input to review votes is available for selection by the voter at any time during presentation of the associated ballot to the voter.
BOLDIN discloses: wherein the list of voter selection is displayed by the device responsive to a voter input to review votes; wherein the voter input to review votes is available for selection by the voter at any time during presentation of the associated ballot to the voter (See Pages 31-32 Fig 16-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill, BROCKHOUSE and TADI references with BOLDIN reference in order to provide user with voting progress.
BOLDIN discloses a voter input to review votes (See Fig 16 part 198). Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI and BOLDIN does not explicitly disclose: voter input remains persistently accessible as a floating interface element within the display regardless of ballot position.
Miyaki discloses: voter (i.e. user) input remains persistently accessible as a floating interface element (i.e. floating menu) within the display regardless of ballot position (i.e. virtual scenes) (See paragraphs 0047 and 0077). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill, BROCKHOUSE, TADI and BOLDIN references with known technique of floating element of Miyaki reference in order to ger fast access of different portions of the interactive content. (See Miyaki paragraph 0001).
With respect to claims 4 and 25 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill further discloses: wherein the virtual reality device is further configured to record all or part of a voting session as a voting stream and store the voting stream in memory for use as an audit trail (See paragraph 0028).
With respect to claim 5 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. BROCKHOUSE further disclose: wherein the voting stream is not traceable back to the voter to protect voter privacy (See paragraph 103-105 Fig 15D-F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill reference with BROCKHOUSE reference in order to accurately compile voting information.
Additionally, with respect to “wherein the voting stream is not traceable back to the voter to protect voter privacy” recite the intended result of positively recited steps of recording. It has been held “clause in a claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)), MPEP 21114.04 I
Further, with respect to “wherein the voting stream is not traceable back to the voter to protect voter privacy” this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data (i.e. voting stream), while the description of data is not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
With respect to claims 6 and 26 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. BROCKHOUSE further discloses: a voting stream aggregation component that stores a plurality of voting steams from a plurality of different voters and, after voting of an election is complete, is accessible for auditing of the election, analytics related to voting patterns, analytics related to voting sequences of voters, or any combination thereof (See paragraph 0088 and 0128).
With respect to claim 14 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill further discloses: wherein ballot presented to the voter using the virtual reality device provides all voting information in a single view without requiring the voter to turn pages, open windows or scroll to view the ballot in its entirety (See paragraph 0047).
With respect to claims 15 and 32 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill further discloses: determining that a first ballot of a plurality of different ballots is to be displayed to the voter (See paragraph 0004, 0047-0048); BROCKHOUSE discloses: the associated ballot is presented to the voter using an identified preferred ballot language of the voter (See paragraph 0036, 0045 and 0103).
With respect to claims 16 and 33 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. BROCKHOUSE discloses: a media port coupled with the virtual reality device that is configured to read information indicating which of a plurality of different ballots is to be presented to the voter (See paragraph 0098-0101).
Additionally, with respect to “information indicating which of a plurality of different ballots is to be presented to the voter” this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data (i.e. information), while the description of data is not used to perform any of the recited functions/method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
With respect to claims 19 and 36 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill further discloses: wherein the virtual reality device is further configured to present the associated ballot to the voter as an audio ballot, or as an audio plus visual ballot. (See paragraph 0110-0111).
With respect to claims 20 and 37 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill further discloses: a printer coupled with the voting server that is configured to print a paper audit trail for the received voter selections (See paragraph 0028 and 0069).
With respect to claim 24 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill further discloses: storing the visual list of two or more voter selections in a memory as a voter verified digital audit trail (See paragraph 0028, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0064 and 0100).
Claims 7-8, 17-18, 27-28 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underhill (US 20190057567) in view of BROCKHOUSE (US 20140231513) and in further view of TADI (US 20180239430) BOLDIN (WO2004/038632), Miyaki (US 20190250773) and HODGE (US 20180219950)
With respect to claims 7 and 27 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki discloses all the limitations as described above. Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki does not explicitly disclose: an eye movement monitor coupled with the virtual reality device configured to capture one or more of eye movements, gaze targets, or gaze durations of the voter as the voter selections for the two or more items on the ballot are made, and wherein the eye movements, gaze targets, gaze durations, or combinations thereof, are stored as part of the voting stream. HODGE further discloses: an eye movement monitor coupled with the virtual reality device configured to capture one or more of eye movements, gaze targets, or gaze durations of the voter as the voter selections for the two or more items on the ballot are made, and wherein the eye movements, gaze targets, gaze durations, or combinations thereof, are stored as part of the voting stream (See paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill, BROCKHOUSE, TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki references with the HODGE reference in order to perform user authentication.
With respect to claims 8 and 28 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN, Miyaki and HODGE disclose all the limitations as described above. HODGE further discloses: wherein the one or more eye movements are correlated with one or more of a selection of a voter selection, a number of times the voter reads one or more choices associated with a particular voter selection, an amount of time the voter looks at a choice before making a selection, additional information about one or more choices that is viewed by the voter, or any combination thereof (See paragraph 0053).
With respect to claims 17 and 34 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki do not explicitly disclose: a biometric sensor coupled with the virtual reality device that is configured to perform biometric authentication of an identity of the voter. HODGE discloses: a biometric sensor coupled with the virtual reality device that is configured to perform biometric authentication of an identity of the voter. (See paragraph 0051 and 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill, BROCKHOUSE, TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki references with the HODGE reference in order to perform user authentication.
With respect to claims 18 and 35 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN, Miyaki and HODGE disclose all the limitations as described above. HODGE further discloses: wherein the biometric sensor comprises a fingerprint sensor, a retinal scan sensor, a facial recognition sensor. a biosensor. a genome sensor. or any combination thereof (See paragraph 0041, 0051, 0065).
Claims 9-13 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underhill (US 20190057567) in view of BROCKHOUSE (US 20140231513) and in further view of TADI (US 20180239430) BOLDIN (WO2004/038632), Miyaki (US 20190250773) and Kassan (US 20050283408).
With respect to claims 9 and 29 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki disclose all the limitations as described above. Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki do not explicitly disclose: wherein ballot presented to the voter includes one or more candidates that may be selected by the voter and a link that is selectable by the voter to request additional information for one or more of the candidates, and wherein the additional information is presented to the voter responsive to a selection of the link. Kassan discloses: wherein ballot presented to the voter includes one or more candidates that may be selected by the voter and a link that is selectable by the voter to request additional information for one or more of the candidates, and wherein the additional information is presented to the voter responsive to a selection of the link (see paragraph 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art time application was filed to modify the combination of Underhill, BROCKHOUSE, TADI, BOLDIN and Miyaki references with Kassan reference in order to educate voter before casting a ballot.
With respect to claims 10-13 and 30-31 Underhill in view of BROCKHOUSE and in further view of TADI, BOLDIN, Miyaki and Kassan disclose all the limitations as described above. With respect to “wherein the additional information comprises one or more of additional information on a candidate, additional information on a ballot issue, a full text version of a ballot issue, an analysis of one or more candidates or ballot issues, or any combination thereof; wherein the additional information comprises visual or audio information associated with one or more candidates or ballot issues; wherein the additional information comprises a link to a third-party site that provides voter information; wherein the additional information comprises a video having a predetermined duration that provides information on each of the one or more candidates” this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data that is contained in the additional information, while the data contained in the additional information is not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to utilize any type of additional information because type of information does not functionally relate to functions/the steps in the method claimed because the type of data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697