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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 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.
The term “near-optimal” in claims 1, 2, 7 – 9, 19 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near-optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the solution" in line 6. It is not clear if “the solution” is referring to the first solution or the second solution.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “heal a second of the plurality of genes” in line 1. It is not clear if this is the same element or a distinct element to the same named element of claim 4, line 12. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 20 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 – 20 recites at least one step or instruction for rules of a puzzle game, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1- 20 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
identify a search space associated with a puzzle to be validated, the search space including one or more objects (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
identify puzzle constraints associated with the puzzle (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
determine a traversal path for identifying a first solution to the puzzle, the traversal path including a sequence of candidate actions (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
determine, for each of the sequence of candidate actions and based at least in part on the search space and the puzzle constraints, respective modified search spaces, each of the respective modified search spaces including a subset of the one or more objects (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
determine the first solution to the puzzle based at least in part on the respective modified search spaces (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
generate, based at least in part on the first solution, a near-optimal solution to the puzzle (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
generate one or more statistical data associated with the near-optimal solution (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG); and
indicate, based at least in part on the one or more statistical data, that the puzzle is valid (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process, a method of exchanging financial obligations and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above in bold, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea, with substantially similar features found in claims 9 (method) and 17 (system). Further, dependent Claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16 and 18 – 20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16 and 18 – 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of a system, one or more processors, one or more computer-readable media storing as recited in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, processors and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16 and 18 – 20) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
a system, one or more processors, one or more computer-readable media storing as recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16 and 18 – 20) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 – 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a system, one or more processors, one or more computer-readable media storing as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 20 amounts to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or
other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or
transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the
fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does
not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 – 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 – 20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1 – 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as
being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme
Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Closest Applicable Prior Art
The closest applicable prior art, Thelen (US Pub. No. 2022/0266126), is interpreted as teaching an interactive puzzle game system comprising a plurality of connected elements, a plurality of identifiable elements, a plurality of user interface elements. The plurality of connected elements is further divided into a plurality of center block elements and a plurality of side block elements. A side of the plurality of center block elements is enclosed by the plurality of side block elements. Each of the center block elements and the side block elements of the connected elements may be associated with one of the identifiable elements. The plurality of side block elements is associated with one of the user interface elements wherein the interactive puzzle system runs on various modes. The interactive puzzle game system is configured to operate based on movement of the plurality of the identifiable elements from a first position to a second position. The transition from the first position to the second position may further include a variation in the plurality of the identifiable elements.
The closest applicable prior art, Anand et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0197070 A1), is interpreted as teaching a computerized system, labels with the order of execution of steps of solving a puzzle, game or activity, for one or more parts of one or more solution-paths for the puzzle, game or activity are described. Execution of the puzzle solution and also the particular sequence of steps in the solution paths are used to evaluate a relative efficiency of one sequence of steps over the other sequence. By quantifying efficiency of the solution path it becomes possible to logically and objectively compare the efficiency of two or more solutions or completions of the puzzle, game or activity.
The closest applicable prior art, Stegall (US Pub. No. 2013/0079077 A1), is interpreted as teaching a power-puzzler computer generated crossword puzzle which employs a unique and original combination of technology-based features to offer puzzlers of all skill levels a richer and more enjoyable crossword puzzle gaming experience. A master puzzle database (MPDB) consisting of clues and solutions associated with metadata is created and utilized to offer numerous improvements over previous crossword puzzle games. Features include offering multiple clues of varying difficulty for the same solution and improvement features to help a puzzler understand and develop crossword strategies, skills and techniques. Unique scoring is offered based on multiple variables such as level of difficulty, elapsed time to complete the puzzle, percentage of solutions correct, etc. Puzzlers can also create custom puzzles by defining game parameters such as categories of interest, level of difficulty and desired time to complete. Puzzler performance can be stored in a user profile.
However, the prior arts does not expressly disclose identify a search space associated with a puzzle to be validated, the search space including one or more objects; identify puzzle constraints associated with the puzzle; determine a traversal path for identifying a first solution to the puzzle, the traversal path including a sequence of candidate actions; determine, for each of the sequence of candidate actions and based at least in part on the search space and the puzzle constraints, respective modified search spaces, each of the respective modified search spaces including a subset of the one or more objects; determine the first solution to the puzzle based at least in part on the respective modified search spaces; generate, based at least in part on the first solution, a near-optimal solution to the puzzle; generate one or more statistical data associated with the near-optimal solution; and indicate, based at least in part on the one or more statistical data, that the puzzle is valid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715