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 .
This communication is in response to application 17/976,050 filed on 10/28/2022. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are amended and hereby entered. Claims 2-6 are canceled. New Claim 9 is added. Claims 1 and 7-9 are currently pending and have been examined. No claims are allowed.
Response to Amendment
The rejections under 35 USC 112 are removed in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101: The applicant submits that the claims no longer recite fundamental economic principles in light of the amendments. The examiner agrees the claims no longer recite fundamental economic principles. However, the claims still recite mental processes. Therefore, an abstract idea is still present and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant submits that the claims do not recite a mental process because the claimed subject matter is directed to a particular graphical user interface and cannot be performed in the human mind. However, the claims are not directed to a graphical user interface. They are directed to a computer implemented method that performs the steps of receiving, generating, presenting, and displaying data. These are all steps that can be performed by a human, with or without a computer. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant submits the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is an improvement in the functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field. The applicant cites specific amendments regarding the generation step, with emphasis on the “polygonal” shape. However, nowhere in the cited amendment contains additional elements that can integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The generation of a graph with “polygonal” shapes is part of the abstract idea, and it is not an additional element that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the applicant argues the claims are directed to displaying a limited information set to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods, which improves function. However, the claims are not directed towards displaying a limited information set to the user. The limitations are very broad, and they disclose a method with the steps of receiving, generating, presenting, and displaying data. There is no technical improvement in these steps, nor additional elements outside general purpose computer components that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 103: In light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn, and a rejection under 35 USC 102 is added. The Fickes reference is no longer relied upon, and its associated arguments are rendered moot.
The applicant submits that Lindauer does not teach the newly amended features of the claims because the Lindauer reference uses box plots which does not match the description of the use of “polygonal shapes”. However, the arrangement of the graph/data describes the intended results of the generation, presenting, and display steps. Again, the claims positively recite steps (receiving, generating, presenting, and displaying) in a method performed by a computer. The intended results describing the data does not carry patentable weight in the claims. Therefore, the arrangement data presented the Lindauer reference does not disqualify it from teaching the newly amended features. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are systems, and Claim 8 is a method. Thus, each claim on its face is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 USC 101. However, claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed mental processes (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The independent claims (1, 7, and 8) recite a method and systems that receive, process, and display data. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion), falling under mental processes. Receiving a request, generating and presenting a graph with data, and displaying the data can equivalently be achieved by a human using pen and paper. The analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality, they can practically be performed by the human mind (i.e., a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea of receiving information, processing information, and displaying the result of the analysis (i.e., processing data and display data) on a generically claimed computer structure. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements such as a “processor” recited at a high level of generality. These elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field.
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional elements, “processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, and “a computer”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies her in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claim 9 does not introduce any new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and does not impact analysis under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lindauer (US 20130179259 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, and 8, (substantially similar in scope and language), Lindauer teaches:
An information processing apparatus for providing investment information to a user, comprising: a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a user, a request for a display of a plurality of items: [(Para 0043) “For example, a company user sends a request with various inputs which are processed, as described below, to provide various targeted compatible investor information including for example a total compatibility score”]
generate and present a graph in which representations of the plurality of items are arranged adjacent to each other in a polygonal shape, wherein each item corresponds to a respective vertex of the polygonal shape: [The arrangement of the data describes the intended results of the generation and presentation step, and does not carry patentable weight in the claims; (Figures 13A and 13B)]
and display, for each item of the plurality of items, a first quartile value, a median value, and a third quartile value in a concentric manner, wherein the first quartile value is an innermost polygon, the third quartile value is an outermost polygon, and the median value is a polygonal shape between the first quartile value and the third quartile value [The contents of the data describes the intended results of the display step, and does not carry patentable weight in the claims; (Figure 13A and 13B)]
Regarding Claim 9, Lindauer further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the graph comprises a plurality of axes extending from a common reference point, each axis corresponding to a respective item of the plurality of items. [(Figure 13A and 13B)]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T. /Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626