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 § 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(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these/this claim(s) fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite(s) the abstract idea of sorting and matching groups of numbers. Specifically, the claim(s) recite reading, obtaining and determining steps along with the relational expression X>Y+Z, which is grouped within the “mathematical concepts” and/or “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) because sorting and matching a group of numbers is a mathematical concept based upon the use of the relational expression and because this sorting and matching is also a process performable mentally. Accordingly, the Claim(s) recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute a process merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions and computer perform(s) the steps or functions of reading, obtaining and determining steps along with the relational expression X>Y+Z. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the Claim(s) do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the Claim(s) do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the Claim(s) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the Claim(s) do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the Claim(s) do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the Claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of sorting and matching groups of numbers. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer perform(s) the steps or functions of reading, obtaining and determining steps along with the relational expression X>Y+Z. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the Claim(s) merely recite the concept of sorting and matching groups of numbers. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
These comments are made in addition to the remarks in Applicant’s specification and arguments, concerning the manner in which the invention distinguishes from the art discussed therein. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed combination including particularly
wherein the controller determines whether the first code matches with the second code based on whether each symbol of at least one specific digit at a specific position in the first code equals a corresponding symbol of the at least one specific digit in the second code and based on a predetermined number Y of digits for which a symbol mismatch other than that of the at least one specific digit is allowed, and a relational expression X>Y+Z is established between X, Y and Z, where:
X is a number of digits of the code, and
Z is a number of digits of the at least specific digit,
in combination with the remaining elements and limitations as described in Independent Apparatus Claim 1. Independent Method Claim 19 recites substantially the same patentable limitations.
The above patentable subject matter is consistent with at least Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 18-23 and 76-78, which provides associated support.
No particular single feature of the claim(s) by itself renders the claim(s) as a whole patentable. Only the claim(s) taken as a whole combination is/are deemed new and unobvious. The prior art lacks this structure or anything equivalent to it.
Considered the best art in the case, neither Sasaki ‘073, Hamasaki “680, nor Yamaguchi ‘056 disclose, teach or suggest the patentable features described above.
The foregoing is an Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
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 JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights