DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to communication filed October 17, 2025. Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 15 and 16 are currently amended. Claims 12 and 13 are canceled. Claim 22 has been added. Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The word “item” should be “items” in the second to last line of the claim. 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 1-11 and 14-22 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. Claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended to include the limitations “detecting, by the computer system, that the existing set of items is requested via a webpage” and “automatically updating, by the computer system via the front end server responsive to a request for the existing set of item, the web page to include the particular candidate item.” However, the specification does not appear to support detecting that the existing set of items is requested via a webpage or automatically updating, via the front end server responsive to a request for the existing set of item, the web page to include the particular candidate item.
Instead the specification only recites that “services provided may include serving web pages (e.g. in response to a HTTP request)” (paragraph 24), “customize a web page for a particular user with items selected for that user….which then uses that listing to present the items to the user via web page” (paragraph 23), “the existing set of items can be a list of items that are going to be communicated to a user (e.g. in an email, via a web page, etc.)” (paragraph 35), and “an existing set of items can be included in a communication to a user…or included in a web page that is viewed by the user (paragraph 80). Therefore, the specification only describes serving web pages response to a HTTP request, customizing a web page for a user with items for that user, and communicating an existing set of items toa user via a web page. There does not appear to be any mention of detecting that the existing set of items is requested via a webpage or automatically updating a web page responsive to a request for the existing set of items. Claims 2-10, 14, 15, and 17-22 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 1, 11 and 16.
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 1-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 16 recite: for each candidate item on the candidate list of items, calculating a respective diversity ranking score for the candidate item based on the candidate item being included in the existing set of items, wherein, for each of the candidate list of items, the calculating the respective diversity ranking score comprises: calculating a first diversity subscore and a second diversity subscore based on a set of attribute values, wherein each of the set of attribute values is associated with the candidate item or at least one of the existing set of items, wherein, for a given one of the candidate items, the calculating the first diversity subscore is based on a given attribute in a set of attributes, a total count of a number of appearances of the given attribute in the existing set of items, a number of appearances of that attribute in a given candidate item, and an attenuation parameter adjustable to increase or decrease a penalty to the first diversity subscore when the given attribute in the set of attributes is associated with two or more items in an evaluation set comprising the existing set of items and the given candidate item, and wherein, for the given one of the candidate items, the calculating the second diversity subscore is based on a function that normalizes an overall diversity ranking score for the existing set of items, and calculating the respective diversity ranking score for the candidate item using the first diversity subscore and the second diversity subscore without performing a clustering operation of all of the candidate list of items; for each of the candidate list of items, calculating a respective weighted diversity score for the candidate item based on an item score for that candidate item and the respective diversity ranking score for each candidate item; determining a largest score of the weighted diversity scores of each of the candidate list of items; reducing a data size of the candidate list of items eligible to be included in the existing set of items for the data structure comprising the existing set of items; based on a particular candidate item of the candidate list of items having the largest weighted diversity score, editing the existing set of items to have the reduced data size of the candidate list of items, wherein the editing comprises adding data corresponding to a particular candidate item added to the existing set of items.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a person can mentally (or manually with the aid of pen and paper) calculate a diversity ranking score by calculating a first diversity subscore and a second diversity subscore based on attribute values without performing clustering, calculate a weighted diversity score based on an item score and respective diversity ranking score, determine a largest score, reduce a data size of the candidate list of items eligible to be included, and edit the existing set of items to have the reduced data size by adding data to the existing set of items. Further, the step of calculating the second diversity subscore based on a function that normalizes an overall diversity ranking score is a mathematical concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The following additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
accessing, by a computer system comprising one or more hardware processors, a candidate list of items, each of which are is eligible to be included in an existing set of items, wherein the candidate list of items and the existing set of items each have one or more respectively associated attribute values – (This limitation represents mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
reducing, for a data structure designated to store one or more of the candidate list of items, a data size - (This limitation represents storing data and is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
editing the data structure corresponding to the existing set of items to have a reduced data size - (This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
storing, by the computer system, information indicative of the particular candidate item in the data structure stored by a database accessible by a front end server of the computer system with the edited data structure, wherein the information enables an addition of the particular candidate item to the existing set of items by another computer system - (This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
detecting, by the computer system, that the existing set of items is requested via a webpage – (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer; further, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (web environment) in which the judicial exception is performed);
configuring, by the computer system, the existing set of items for the web page based on the edited data structure to be updated with the particular candidate item added to the existing set of items in the edited data structure - (This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Further, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (web environment) in which the judicial exception is performed.); and
automatically updating, by the computer system via the front end server responsive to a request for the existing set of item, the web page to include the particular candidate item – (This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (web environment) in which the judicial exception is performed.)
a computer system, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform recited limitations – (The computer components are recited at a high level of generality, in which the computer is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions or to perform abstract idea, such that they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.)
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “accessing” and “automatically updating” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitations of “reducing,” “editing,” and “storing” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to storing and retrieving information in memory and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “detecting…via a webpage”, “configuring the existing set of items for the web page”, and “automatically updating…the webpage” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and also merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (web environment). The recitations of detecting that the set of items is requested via a webpage, a computer system, processor, and memory to perform claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 recites: wherein the first diversity subscore for the given candidate item decreases successively when the given attribute in the set of attributes is associated with an increasing quantity of the existing set of items and the given candidate item. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The human mind can successively decrease the first diversity subscore when the given attribute is associated with an increasing quantity. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 recite: generating the candidate list of items by taking a highest scoring item from a plurality of item clusters, wherein each item in a given item cluster in the plurality of item clusters shares at least one common attribute value with every other item in the given item cluster. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The human mind can generate a list by taking a highest scoring item from a plurality of item clusters, wherein the items in the cluster share a common attribute values. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 5 recites: including the existing set of items, including the particular candidate item, in a communication to a user. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally or manually include items in a communication to a user. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 6 recites: wherein the item scores for each of the candidate list of items are based on knowledge of a particular individual. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally or manually score items based on knowledge of an individual. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 7 and 22 recites: wherein for each of the candidate list of items, calculating the respective weighted diversity score for the candidate item comprises: multiplying the item score for the candidate item, raised to an exponential power, by the respective diversity ranking score for that candidate item. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally or manually calculate a score by multiplying the item score, raised to an exponential power, by the diversity ranking score. Further, this limitation recites a mathematical concept. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 8 recites: wherein the existing set of items is the empty set. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally determine an empty set. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 recites: wherein calculating the respective diversity ranking score for each of the candidate list of items is based on a diversity function assessed with a proper subset of the existing set of items. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally calculate a diversity score based on a diversity function assessed with a proper subset of the existing set of items. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 10 recites: wherein calculating the respective diversity ranking score for each of the candidate list of items is based on a diversity function assessed with every one of the existing set of items. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally calculate a diversity score based on a diversity function assessed with every one of the existing set of items. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites: for each candidate item on candidate list of items, calculating a respective diversity ranking score for each candidate item based on the candidate item being included in the existing set of items, wherein, for each of the candidate list of items, the calculating the respective diversity ranking score comprises: calculating a first diversity subscore and a second diversity subscore based on a set of attribute values, wherein each of the set of attribute values is associated with the candidate item or at least one of the existing set of items, wherein, for a given one of the candidate items, the calculating the first diversity subscore is based on a given attribute in a set of attributes, a total count of a number of appearances of the given attribute in the existing set of items, a number of appearances of that attribute in a given candidate item, and an attenuation parameter adjustable to increase or decrease a penalty to the first diversity subscore when the given attribute in the set of attributes is associated with two or more items in an evaluation set comprising the existing set of items and the given candidate item, and wherein, for the given one of the candidate items, the calculating the second diversity subscore is based on a function that normalizes an overall diversity ranking score for the existing set of items, and calculating the respective diversity ranking score for the candidate item using the first diversity subscore and the second diversity subscore without performing a clustering operation of all of the candidate list of items; for each of the candidate list of items, calculating a respective weighted diversity score for the candidate item based on an item score for the candidate item and the respective diversity ranking score for each candidate item; determining a largest score of the weighted diversity scores of each of the candidate list of items; reducing a data size of the candidate list of items eligible to be included in the existing set of items for the data structure comprising the existing set of items; selecting a particular candidate item of the candidate list of items having the largest weighted diversity score for inclusion in the existing set of items; editing the existing set of items to have the reduced data size of the candidate list of items, wherein the editing comprises adding data corresponding to the particular candidate item added to the existing set of items.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a person can mentally (or manually with the aid of pen and paper) calculate a diversity ranking score by calculating a first diversity subscore and a second diversity subscore based on attribute values without performing clustering, calculate a weighted diversity score based on an item score and respective diversity ranking score, determine a largest score, reduce a data size of the candidate list of items eligible to be included, select a candidate item having the largest weighted diversity score, and edit the existing set of items to have the reduced data size by adding data to the existing set of items. Further, the step of calculating the second diversity subscore based on a function that normalizes an overall diversity ranking score is a mathematical concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The following additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
accessing a candidate list of items generated by taking a highest scoring item from a plurality of item clusters, wherein each item in a given item cluster in the plurality of item clusters shares at least one common attribute value with every other item in the given item cluster, and wherein each item in the candidate list of items is eligible to be included in an existing set of items, wherein the candidate list of items and the existing set of items each have one or more respectively associated attribute values – (This limitation represents mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
reducing, for a data structure designated to store one or more of the candidate list of items, a data size - (This limitation represents storing data and is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
editing the data structure corresponding to the existing set of items to have a reduced data size - (This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
storing information indicative of the particular candidate item in the data structure stored by a database accessible by a front end server of the computer system with the edited data structure, wherein the information enables addition of the particular candidate item to the existing set of items by another computer system - (This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity);
detecting that the existing set of items is requested via a webpage – (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer; further, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (web environment) in which the judicial exception is performed);
configuring the existing set of items for the web page based on the edited data structure to be updated with the particular candidate item added to the existing set of items in the edited data structure - (This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Further, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (web environment) in which the judicial exception is performed.); and
automatically updating, via the front end server responsive to a request for the existing set of item, the web page to include the particular candidate item – (This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (web environment) in which the judicial exception is performed.)
a computer system to perform recited limitations – (The computer system is recited at a high level of generality, in which the computer is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions or to perform abstract idea, such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.)
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “accessing” and “automatically updating” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitations of “reducing,” “editing,” and “storing” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to storing and retrieving information in memory and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “detecting…via a webpage”, “configuring the existing set of items for the web page”, and “automatically updating…the webpage” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and also merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (web environment). The recitations of detecting that the set of items is requested via a webpage and a computer system to perform claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 14 recites: including the particular candidate item in the existing set of items. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally or manually include a candidate item in the existing set of items. The claim recites the additional element of causing a communication of the existing set of items, including the particular candidate item, to be sent to a user. This limitation represents adding insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation causing a communication to be sent to a user is recited at a high level of generality and thus amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, this additional elements represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 15 recites: wherein for each of the candidate list of items, calculating the respective weighted diversity score for the candidate item comprises: multiplying the item score for the candidate item by the respective diversity ranking score for the candidate item. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally or manually calculate a score by multiplying the item score by the diversity ranking score. Further, this limitation recites a mathematical concept. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 17 and 18 recite: generating the candidate list of items by taking a highest scoring item from a plurality of item clusters, wherein each item in a given item cluster in the plurality of item clusters appears only within that given item cluster and not in any of the others of the plurality of item clusters. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The human mind can generate a list by taking a highest scoring item from a plurality of item clusters, wherein each item in the cluster appears only within that cluster. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 19 recites: assigning an item score to individual items in each of the plurality of item clusters prior to calculating a respective diversity ranking score for each of the candidate list of items. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The human mind can assign an item score prior to calculating diversity ranking score. There are no additional elements. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 20 recites the additional element of: transmitting at least a portion of the existing set of items and the particular candidate item to a user. This limitation represents adding insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of transmitting at least a portion of the existing set of items and the particular candidate item to a user is recited at a high level of generality and thus amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 21 recites the additional element of adding that particular candidate item on the one or more web pages in place of another candidate item that was removed from the existing set of items. This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Further, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (web environment) in which the judicial exception is performed. As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations relate to a specific usage in a specific situation to provide a particular practical application that improved technology (e.g. to optimize data storage sizes and data structures while minimizing computational requirements for clustering). The examiner disagrees. The claims do not include any limitations that appear to be directed to the alleged improved technology of optimizing data storage sizes and data structures while minimizing computational requirements for clustering. Instead, the reducing/editing of data sizes appears to refer to making a smaller list of candidate items and not to an improved data structure. Clearly making a stored candidate list a smaller size will take up less storage space, but this does not represent improved technology. In fact, the computer is just used as a tool to store the data. There is no improvement to the computer itself.
Applicant argues that the claims utilize specific operations for reducing computational requirements that may be performed when clustering though diversity score calculations. However, the calculating of diversity score and clustering are mental processes, and thus can be performed mentally or manually without a computer. The computer is used to perform this calculations faster than the human mind, but this does not represent a reduction in computational requirements that improves the computer in any way. Instead, the computer is just used as a tool to perform/improve the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims utilize specific operations for reducing data sizes for data containers where new data is added, such as having access to 30 items instead of 5,000 items, for diversity assessment. Again, this does not improve the functionality of the computer. Storing less data is not an improvement to the computer. The diversity assessment (i.e. calculating diversity ranking scores) is a process that can be performed mentally. And while having to process 30 items instead of 5,000 may be more computationally feasible or faster, the same is true when processing 30 items instead of 5,000 items mentally or by pen and paper.
Applicant further argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner disagrees. Applicant staties that the claims do not use generic computer components and that specific devices, application, and communication technologies are required to perform such functions. However, the claims only include generic computer components and do not include specific devices, application, and communication technologies. Applicant argues that the claims provides specific operations to calculate diversity scores and reduce data sizes based on calculated scores. However, these steps are mental processes because a user can mentally or manually with pen and paper calculate diversity scores and reduce data sizes by only selecting certain items based on calculated scores. Storing less data is not an improved data structure. Applicant’s alleged improvement of providing data faster and in a more efficient manner based on reduced data size would occur with both mental calculations and computerized calculations. An improvement cannot be found alone in the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached at 571-272-3645. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167