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
This is a nonfinal rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 12/18/2025. Claims 17-20, 23-27, 30, and 32-36 have been amended without the addition of any new matter. Claims 1-16, 21, 22, 31, and 37-48 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 17-20, 23-30, and 32-36 remain pending and are considered herein.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/02/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of prior patent numbers “US 11556967,” and “10891665” has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36 recites the limitation “wherein said submission order prioritizer programmed to" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there has been no mention of a “prioritizer” in any of the claims depended upon, including claims 30-35. The applicant may correct the objection by replacing “said submission order prioritizer programmed to:” with “wherein a submission order prioritizer is programmed to:..” Appropriate correction is required.
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 30, and 32-36 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 30 recites:
-a submitter group generator programmed to allocate each of a plurality of submitters to one of a plurality of submitter groups
-a submission receiver programmed to allocate a plurality of submissions from each of said plurality of submission groups into a corresponding one of a plurality of submission groups.
However, the claims are indefinite because the term “said plurality of submission groups” lacks antecedent basis, because the plurality of submission groups has not been introduced in claim 30. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably apprise the scope of “allocate a plurality of submissions from each of said plurality of submission groups into a corresponding one of a plurality of submission group” because it is not clear if “said plurality of submission groups” and “corresponding one of a plurality of submission groups” corresponds to the same set of submission groups. The examiner notes that the applicant may have intended to write “a submission receiver programmed to allocate a plurality of submissions from each of said plurality of submitter groups into a corresponding one of a plurality of submission groups” which would alleviate both the antecedent basis issue, and the indefiniteness of the scope of the claims. Therefore, the claims will be analyzed as if the correction above has been made, however the correction is still expected to be made by the examiner.
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 17-20, 23-30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 17-20 and 23-29: A computer, comprising: a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer code including:
Claims 30 and 32-36: A computer device programmed to reduce bias in submission review, comprising: a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer code including:
Independent claims 17 and 30 recites a computer with a processor and non-transitory memory, therefore the claims are directed to the at least one potentially eligible subject matter category, “machine or article of manufacture.” Therefore, the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 17 and 30 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 17:
-A computer device programmed to reduce bias in submission review, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer program including:
a submission receiver programmed to receive a plurality of submissions from a plurality of submitters;
a submission group generator programmed to allocate said plurality of submissions into one or more submission groups;
a submission review target number assignor programmed to associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group;
a submission server programmed to repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers.
Claim 30:
-A computer device programmed to reduce bias in submission review, comprising:
A processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer code including:
-a submitter group generator programmed to allocate each of a plurality of submitters to one of a plurality of submitter groups
-a submission receiver programmed to allocate a plurality of submissions from each of said plurality of submission groups into a corresponding one of a plurality of submission groups;
-a submission server programmed to serve said plurality of submissions included in one submission group to a plurality of reviewers;
-a submission review target number assignor programmed to associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group;
Wherein said submission server programmed to repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews associated with said submission group by said plurality of reviewers.
When given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the bolded limitations recite an abstract idea which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. The bolded claim limitations recite steps of “receive a plurality of submissions from a plurality of submitters; allocate said plurality of submissions into one or more submission groups; associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group; repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers.” This process falls under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, wherein the overall task at hand is managing the allocation of submissions to reviewers. The output of the claims results in serving tasks to individuals, and the intermediate steps are mere data gathering and processing steps towards performing the allocation of the submission reviews to the reviewers. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) for more information on certain methods of organizing human activity. When considering the bolded limitations, the claims are recited at a high-level of generality such that they encompass mere instructions to an individual in order to manage their behavior. Certain rules or instructions which “manage personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between individuals falls within the scope of certain methods of organizing human activity” even when the interactions are between an individual and a computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”
It is clear that the specification reflects the assertion that the claims are merely managing personal behavior, in fact the specification, in at least page 9 lines 11-25, states
“Again, referring primarily to Figure 1, in particular embodiments, the submission review module (55) can further function to depict in the administrator graphical user interface (44) a preselected target number icon (57) which by user command in the administrator graphical user interface (44) can establish a preselected target number (19) of submission reviews (18) to each of the plurality of reviewers (17) correspondingly associated to a plurality of reviewer identifiers (59) allocated to a common reviewer roster identifier (60), or to each of the plurality of submissions (15) correspondingly associated to a plurality of submission identifiers (61) allocated to a common submission group identifier (62). In particular embodiments, the preselected target number (19) can be the same or different between a plurality of reviewers (17), or between a plurality of submissions (15). In particular embodiments, the submission review preselected target number icon (57) can take the form of an instruction depicted in the administrator graphical user interface (44) to enter the preselected target number (19) such as "Specify the number of submission reviews"”
By the language set forth in the specification, it is clear that the claims in light of the specification recite a system that merely facilitates the ability of an administrator, through various options and user commands, to manage a set of submissions and reviewers to perform the allocation of the submissions. Therefore, the overall concept recited in the plain language of the bolded functions in the claim is a recitation of an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” particularly managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between individuals.
Furthermore, because the claims are recited at a high-level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, the claims also recite an abstract idea under “mental processes.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states, “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Since all of the steps in bold in both claims 17 and 30 can be practically performed in the human mind, even though they may require a computer, the claims still recite an abstract idea because the same steps can be performed by humans without a computer (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Therefore, the claims recite at least one abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity” and another under “mental processes” the claims are to be further analyzed under Step 2a Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
-A computer device programmed
- a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer program including:
- a submission receiver programmed to...
- a submission group generator programmed to...
- a submission review target number assignor programmed to...
- a submission server programmed to...
Claim 30 recites the following additional elements:
- A computer device programmed to...
- A processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer code including:
-a submitter group generator programmed to...
-a submission receiver programmed to...
-a submission server programmed to...
-a submission review target number assignor programmed to...
The additional elements, whether considered individually or in an ordered combination, are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). As stated in MPEP 2106.05(f), “Use of 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” In this case, the abstract idea steps are merely instructed to be performed on generic computing devices such as computer, computer device, processor, and non-transitory memory. The specification in at least pages 3-4 describe the computing device presented in Fig. 1, which recites generic features of computers, and not a specific, improved computing infrastructure to perform the claims. The claim language of “programmed to” such as in “a submission receiver programmed to...” are merely equivalents of “apply it” language because they are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that improvements to the technological or technical field are a consideration for determining whether integration into a practical application or significantly more has been provided. However, no improvements to computer functionality, a technological environment, or a technical field of use have been purported, nor are any improvements reflected in the claim language that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Whether viewing the additional elements individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because generic computers are capable of the generic data processing tasks recited. Therefore, since the claims merely recite generic computing devices performing software functions that are abstract idea steps, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
-A computer device programmed
- a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer program including:
- a submission receiver programmed to...
- a submission group generator programmed to...
- a submission review target number assignor programmed to...
- a submission server programmed to...
Claim 30 recites the following additional elements:
- A computer device programmed to...
- A processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer code including:
-a submitter group generator programmed to...
-a submission receiver programmed to...
-a submission server programmed to...
-a submission review target number assignor programmed to...
The additional elements, whether considered individually or combination, have also not been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth in Prong 2. The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the use of generic computing devices such as computer, computer device, processor, and non-transitory memory to perform the steps of receive a plurality of submissions from a plurality of submitters; allocate said plurality of submissions into one or more submission groups; associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group; repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims also do not recite an improvement to the “technological environment” or “field of use” therefore the abstract idea has not been found to include an inventive concept. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the claims such that they are significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Additionally, dependent claims 18-20, 23-29, and 32-36 have been given the full-two part analysis, considered individually and in combination with the claims they depend on.
Claims 18-20 and claim 36 add the additional steps of a “submission order prioritizer,” however the steps performed by the prioritizer are all still examples of “managing personal behavior” because they are mere instructions to manage the interactions between people. Furthermore, all of the functions are recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind. Other than the submission order prioritizer being “programmed to” perform the abstract idea functions, there are no further additional elements to be considered. The abstract idea functions are still being performed within the same generic computing infrastructure without an improvement to the computer’s functionality or a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it is significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus claims 18-20 remain patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The same reasons above also apply to claims 23-25 which introduce a submission review allocator, and a submission review editor. However, the functions of determining the number of reviews associated with reviewers, allocating each submission reviews..., and receiving edits of submission reviews still are all mere facilitation of personal interactions between individuals and thus fall under certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, they are still recited at such a high level of generality that they can practically be performed in the human mind. Other than the submission order allocator and editor being “programmed to” perform the abstract idea functions, there are no further additional elements to be considered. The abstract idea functions are still being performed within the same generic computing infrastructure without an improvement to the computer’s functionality or a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it is significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus claims 18-20 remain patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 26 and 27 add the additional step of “depicting a submissions list” or “depicting a submission review indicator” which are more of the same abstract idea of “receiving submissions, allocating the submissions to reviewers, and repeating the allocation multiple times.” “Depicting an indicator” can be performed in the human mind with or without a physical aid, therefore they are still directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Finally, the additional element of a “user interface programmed to” is no more than mere recitations of the word “apply it” or its equivalents on computers in its ordinary capacity, therefore they have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Furthermore, these additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not meaningfully limit the claim as they merely link the field of peer-reviewing to user interfaces, therefore they do not add significantly more in order to promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 28-29 further limits the abstract idea by limiting possible formats of submission content, which are simply additional elements of the same abstract idea. These additional elements include electronic media content, electronic texts or graphics, video recordings, audio recordings, multimedia presentations, slide presentations, spreadsheets or combinations thereof, therefore they have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere forms of technological fields being applied to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” Furthermore, these additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not meaningfully limit the claim as they merely link the field of peer-reviewing to electronic media content, therefore they do not add significantly more in order to promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 32-33 add additional steps of generating a reviewer roster which are more of the same abstract idea of “receiving submissions, allocating the submissions to reviewers, and repeating the allocation multiple times.” Generating a reviewer roster can be performed in the human mind. The additional elements of reviewer roster generator programmed to” merely recite instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computing device. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Therefore, the additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not meaningfully limit the claim in a way that would add significantly more and promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 34-35 add the additional steps of “associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of reviewers,” and “serve said plurality of submissions... until the pre-selected target is met.” These additional steps are simple a repetition of the last two steps in claim 17 which also, “associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of reviewers,” and “serve said plurality of submissions... until the pre-selected target is met.” Therefore, it is more of the same abstract idea of “receiving submissions, allocating the submissions to reviewers, and repeating the allocation multiple times.” The additional elements included are “a target submission review allocator programmed to” which merely recites instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computing device in its ordinary capacity. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Therefore, the additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not meaningfully limit the claim in a way that would add significantly more and promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petty (US 20090119258 A1), in view of Lakhani et al. (US 9652742 B2) hereinafter Lakhani.
Regarding Claim 30:
Petty teaches:
-A computer device programmed to reduce bias in submission review, comprising: A processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer code including: (Petty[0018] The present disclosure includes methods and systems which perform these methods, including processing systems which perform these methods, and computer readable media which when executed on processing systems cause the systems to perform these methods.):
-a submission receiver programmed to allocate a plurality of submissions into a corresponding one of a plurality of submission groups; (Petty[0055] In some embodiments, the content ranking server 100 receives user content submissions. [0099] Submitted content can, in some embodiments, be analyzed to detect relevant subject matter. In some embodiments, content is organized and stored according to the subject matter and/or type of content, that is either explicitly specified (e.g., user specified) or system identified.) In Petty, the categorization of the submissions into subject matter, teaches the allocation of the submissions into submission groups.
-a submission server programmed to serve said plurality of submissions included in one submission group to a plurality of reviewers; (Petty[0099] The type of content and/or the subject matter relating to the content can assist the system in identifying reviewers from a set of users. For example, users may have specific areas of expertise related to a particular subject matter and can be identified as a potentially suitable reviewer to rate and article related to the particular subject matter.)
-a submission review target number assignor programmed to associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group; (Petty[0039] For content to be ranked and/or otherwise published, a cumulative rating over a particular threshold ought to be received based on reviews from a predetermined number of reviewers.)In this excerpt from Petty, Petty discloses a requirement for the reviews to receive both a pre-determined rating threshold and pre-determined amount of reviews, which anticipates the above limitation being claimed.
Wherein said submission server programmed to repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews associated with said submission group by said plurality of reviewers. (Petty [0039] During the second pass review, additional reviewers are identified to rate the piece of content. For content to be ranked and/or otherwise published, a cumulative rating over a particular threshold ought to be received based on reviews from a predetermined number of reviewers. The number of reviews and/or the score threshold can be adjusted as suitable. The number of reviews required and the score threshold may vary based on the type of content and the subject matter relating to the content. The number of required reviews and/or score thresholds may also be customer specifiable (e.g., specified by end users and/or third party content hosts). [0041] In an alternative example, there is an initial pass of about 5 reviews, and then there is a further process of bringing the final number of reviews in line with an ideal number of reviews for each rating level. Each time a review is done, the average rating for the piece is adjusted to include the information from the last review. Based on the new average rating, the system asks if a sufficient number of reviews have been done. If so, there are no more reviews; if not, there are more reviews until the number of reviews is in line with the average ranking of the piece.)Petty’s system determines of there is a sufficient number of reviews, and if not it repeatedly serves the submission back to more reviews until the process determines that the sufficient number of review amount has been attained.
However, Petty fails to teach:
-a submitter group generator programmed to allocate each of a plurality of submitters to one of a plurality of submitter groups
-a submission receiver programmed to allocate a plurality of submissions from each of said plurality of submission groups into a corresponding one of a plurality of submission groups;(Petty doesn’t teach that the plurality of submissions comes from submission groups)
Alternatively, Lakhani discloses an open innovation event conducted with a plurality of rule regimes, wherein participant groups are allocated into different rule regimes. Lakhani teaches:
-a submitter group generator programmed to allocate each of a plurality of submitters to one of a plurality of submitter groups. (Lakhani [Col. 2 Lines 9-31] In various embodiments, an open innovation event is conducted with more than one (e.g., two, three, four, or more) rule regimes. During event registration, a rule choice module is used to facilitate selection of a desired rule regime from a choice of possible rule regimes. The selection may be made by the participants, an event sponsor, an event administrator or some combination thereof. An assignment module assigns participants to groups based at least in part on the rule regime selection... An event operations module conducts the event with one rule regime applying to one group and a different rule regime applying to another group, so that each participant group is subject to different rule regimes, with the different rule regimes being selected from the possible rule regimes. (It should be understood that there may be more than two groups and more than two rule regimes.) A solution submission module receives solutions from submitters. An evaluation module is used to evaluate the submitted solutions and identify one or more winning solutions. A prize distribution module is used to manage the distribution of prizes based on the rule regime applicable to the group to which the winning submitter was assigned. [Col. 9 Lines 33-39] In some embodiments, the rule regimes include permissions/restrictions on information and solution sharing, that is, the degree to which some set of participants, for example, a team, group, room, or a collection of teams, groups, rooms, etc., may share their ideas and/or work product with each other. See [Col. 10 Line 51 – Col. 11 Line 27) for how the allocation is performed. )The participants of Lakhani’s event fall within the scope of submitters because they submit solutions. Because the submitters are grouped based on specific rule regimes, the limitation is satisfied because of each of the submitters is allocated into a plurality of submitter groups(the groups based on a particular rule regime).
-a submission receiver programmed to allocate a plurality of submissions from each of said plurality of submi(tter) groups into a corresponding one of a plurality of submission groups;(Lakhani [Col. 11 Lines 61-66] A solution submission module 224 receives solutions from submitters. In some embodiments, this is accomplished by file upload, which allows for authentication (e.g., username and password, or other authentication) of submitters, a determination of the submission time, and in some cases automatic confirmation of document types and formats. [Col. 12 Lines 15-24] As another example, the evaluation 230 may facilitate scoring by one or more reviewers using a scorecard. The reviewers may be a small or large number of reviewers. The reviewers may be a participant in the open innovation system, or may be a subset of participants who have previously participated in other open innovation events. In some embodiments, reviewers are identified by selecting successful participants in open innovation events. [Col. 12 Lines 30-38] The criteria for evaluation may be different for different rule regimes. For example, submissions submitted under a first rule regime may be evaluated using different criteria than submissions submitted under a second rule regime. The different evaluation criteria may be reflected in different scorecards and/or associated point systems, different automatic evaluation scoring mechanisms or configuration, and so on. [Col. 12 Lines 47-52] A prize distribution module 240 distributes prizes based on the rule regime applicable to the group in which a winning submitter was assigned by the assignment module. In a preferred embodiment, the prize distribution module assigns prizes based on the evaluation module 230 results.) Lakhani’s teachings of “submissions submitted under a first rule regime,” and “submissions submitted under a second rule regime” is an example of allocated submission groups, because the submissions from submitters under the same rule regime also have their submissions grouped together as well because of the different criteria for each group.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Petty with the teachings of Lakhani, particularly that the submitters are grouped based on a rule regime, and that the submitter’s submissions are also grouped into a plurality of submission groups. By performing this combination, one would reasonably expect the combination to yield the claim limitations because Petty’s process also has submissions that have varying requirements. The only difference is that the grouping is based on the submitter’s as taught by Lakhani. Since both Petty and Lakhani are directed to systems for allocating submitters and submissions into corresponding reviewer groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Lakhani’s benefits which include unbiased peer review by maintaining anonymity. Therefore, it would have been necessary to perform both steps of grouping the submitters but also grouping the submissions themselves to provide the benefit of maintaining the anonymity of the developers and reviewers alike to ensure unbiased peer review. (Lakhani [Col. 16 Lines 33-38] In some embodiments, where unbiased peer review is useful, the review board members are unrelated (other than their membership in the community), and conduct their reviews independently and/or anonymously. In some embodiments, reviewers are allocated such that they only infrequently work on the same events. [Col. 16 Lines 55-58] The screener may, for example, verify that the identities of the developers 404 cannot be discerned from their submissions, to maintain the anonymity of the developers 404 during review.)
Regarding Claim 32:
Petty in view of Lakhani teach The computer of claim 30,
Furthermore, Petty teaches:
-wherein said computer code further comprises a reviewer roster generator programmed to associate each of said plurality of reviewers to one of a plurality of reviewer rosters, each of said plurality of reviewer rosters correspondingly served said plurality of submissions included in one of said one or more submission groups.(Petty [0099] Submitted content received for rating can be initially stored in a database. Submitted content can, in some embodiments, be analyzed to detect relevant subject matter. In some embodiments, content is organized and stored according to the subject matter and/or type of content, that is either explicitly specified (e.g., user specified) or system identified. The type of content and/or the subject matter relating to the content can assist the system in identifying reviewers from a set of users. For example, users may have specific areas of expertise related to a particular subject matter and can be identified as a potentially suitable reviewer to rate and article related to the particular subject matter.) In this citation, the submissions are grouped based on their type of content. The system identifies a set of users with that area of expertise which is mapped to “reviewer rosters”
Regarding Claim 33:
Petty in view of Lakhani teach The computer of claim 32,
Furthermore, Petty fails to teach:
- wherein said reviewer roster generator programmed to allocate said plurality of submitters in a submitter group to generate a corresponding one said reviewer rosters.(Petty [0014] Statistical attributes of the demographic association of the set of reviewers may be determined. In one embodiment, another reviewer that is substantially demographically consistent with the demographic association of the set of reviewers to review the submission is selected.) While Petty does teach allocate the grouped submissions themselves to the corresponding reviewer rosters, Petty does not teach the allocation of the submitters in the submitter group.
However, Lakhani does teach:
-wherein said reviewer roster generator programmed to allocate said plurality of submitters in a submitter group to generate a corresponding one said reviewer rosters(Lakhani [Col. 13 Lines 54-59] The method includes evaluating 311 the submitted solutions with an evaluation module to identify a winning solution. The method includes distributing prizes 313 with a prize distribution module based on the rule regime applicable to the group in which a winning submitter was assigned by the assignment module. [Col. 16 Lines 19-30] To determine which submission will be the winning submission, a review process 414 may be used. A review can take place in any number of ways. In some cases, the facilitator 400 engages one or more members of the community and/or the facilitator and/or the entity requesting the solution. In some embodiments, the review process includes one or more developers acting as a review board to review submissions from the developers 404. A review board preferably has a small number of (e.g., fewer than ten) members, for example, three members, but can be any number. Generally, the review board is formed for only one or a small number of related events, for example three events)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Petty with the teachings of Lakhani, particularly that the submitters are grouped based on a rule regime. By performing this combination, one would reasonably expect the combination to yield the claim limitations because Petty’s process also has submissions that have varying requirements. The only difference is that the grouping is based on the submitter’s as taught by Lakhani. Since both Petty and Lakhani are directed to systems for allocating submitters and submissions into corresponding reviewer groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Lakhani’s benefits which include unbiased peer review by maintaining anonymity. Therefore, it would have been necessary to perform both steps of grouping the submitters but also grouping the submissions themselves to provide the benefit of maintaining the anonymity of the developers and reviewers alike to ensure unbiased peer review. (Lakhani [Col. 16 Lines 33-38] In some embodiments, where unbiased peer review is useful, the review board members are unrelated (other than their membership in the community), and conduct their reviews independently and/or anonymously. In some embodiments, reviewers are allocated such that they only infrequently work on the same events. [Col. 16 Lines 55-58] The screener may, for example, verify that the identities of the developers 404 cannot be discerned from their submissions, to maintain the anonymity of the developers 404 during review.)
Regarding Claim 34:
Petty in view of Lakhani teach The computer of claim 32,
Furthermore, Petty teaches:
- wherein said computer code further comprises a target submission review allocate programmed to associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of reviewers. (Petty[0039] During the second pass review, additional reviewers are identified to rate the piece of content. For content to be ranked and/or otherwise published, a cumulative rating over a particular threshold ought to be received based on reviews from a predetermined number of reviewers. The number of reviews and/or the score threshold can be adjusted as suitable. The number of reviews required and the score threshold may vary based on the type of content and the subject matter relating to the content. The number of required reviews and/or score thresholds may also be customer specifiable (e.g., specified by end users and/or third party content hosts). Other factors that can affect the suitable number of reviews and score threshold are contemplated and are considered to be within the scope of this disclosure.)
Regarding Claim 35:
Petty in view of Lakhani teach The computer of claim 34,
Furthermore, Petty teaches:
-wherein submission server programmed to serve said plurality of submissions included in one of said submission groups to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of reviewers submits said pre-selected target number of submission reviews. (Petty[0111] After the piece of content has passed a first round review session and received reasonable ratings from a number of reviewers, additional reviewers are selected to further review of the same piece of content. The content is presented to additional reviewers and ratings are received from at least a portion of the additional reviewers. The second pass ratings submitted by reviewers are tracked and recorded. In process 422, it is determined if the submitted content has been received by a predetermined number of reviewers. If not, in process 424, the submitted content is sent to additional reviewers. If so, in process 426, the cumulative rating is re-computed. The cumulative rating can be determined based on a process similar thereto of that discussed in FIG. 4A.)
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petty (US 20090119258 A1), in view of Lakhani et al. (US 9652742 B2) hereinafter Lakhani,
further in view of Perry et al. (US 11238380 B1) hereinafter Perry.
Petty in view of Lakhani teach the computer of claim 35:
Furthermore, Petty teaches wherein said submission order prioritizer to:
- determine number of reviews associated with each reviewer within said plurality of reviewers;(Petty[0081]The review tracking module, in some embodiments, also tracks the review record of a reviewer. For example, the review tracking module 214 can keep track of the number of reviews received by a reviewer versus the total number of requests to determine reviewer responsiveness. Reviewer responsiveness is typically used for rating reviewers.[0009] The plurality of reviewers can be selected based on a ranking associated with each of the plurality of reviewers. The set of criteria typically includes the ranking associated with each of the plurality of reviewers.)
-and serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said reviewer within said plurality of reviewers based on a reviewer rating based on their submitted review history(Petty[0045] One of the factors involved in selecting reviewers is based on ratings of the reviewers. Reviewer rating (e.g., quality of a reviewer's rating) is a crucial variable in the equation to ensuring efficacy and quality of reviews for user submitted content. Reviewer rating can provide as an indicator of multiple facets of a reviewer user's rating behavior, including, but not limited to, the merits of given reviews, consistency of a reviewer user's reviewing habits, responsiveness of a reviewer, the amount of review time a reviewer needs, etc.) In this case, “selecting reviewers” refers to choosing the reviewer within the reviewer pool of which to serve the submissions.
However, neither Petty nor Lakhani teach:
- serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said reviewer within said plurality of reviewers having fewest submitted reviews.
Alternatively, Perry teaches a system to facilitate the notification of facility regarding an event, which includes an interface that automatically allocates tasks to different employees of the interface based on their availability which teaches:
- determine number of tasks associated with each employee within said plurality of employees; (Perry[Col. 17 Line 41-55] Task management interface 800 may include a list of tasks active in system 100, and employee list 806 that includes a number of assigned and completed tasks associated with each employee. In some embodiments, employee list 806 may indicate one or more statuses for each employee such as, for example, whether an employee is “available” (e.g., on duty and not working on any task), “dispatched” (e.g., on duty and currently working on a task), or “logged out” (e.g., off duty). In some embodiments, employee list 806 may display more or fewer statuses depending on the types of data collected and the needs of the facility and its administrators. In other embodiments, employee list 806 may indicate a number of tasks that a particular employee has completed, out of the total number of tasks assigned during the employee's time on duty.) Perry’s employee list which includes the number of completed tasks of each employee teaches the limitation above.
- serve said plurality of tasks in said task group to said employee within said plurality of employees having fewest assigned tasks.(Perry[Col. 13 Lines 51-60] In such embodiments, network server 160 may distribute tasks in an equitable manner, so maintain an equal number of tasks assigned to each employee at any given time, within a predetermined tolerance. Thus, network server 160 may distribute tasks to employees who have fewer than the average or median number of tasks for all employees. In some embodiments, network server 160 may assign tasks in a “round robin” fashion, by rotating task assignments according to a determined or predefined order. [Col. 14 Lines 9-14] In some embodiments, network server 160 may rank available employees... so that employees with fewer currently assigned tasks are prioritized for assignment over employees who have full or nearly-full current workloads.) Perry aims to distribute the tasks in an equitable manner by assigning tasks to employees with fewer than the average assign tasks. Though this section does not teach the “fewest” limitation, Perry also teaches [Col. 14 Lines 9-14] ranking employees where employees with fewer assigned tasks are prioritized. Ranking is interpreted to mean putting the reviewers and in order, and considering that employees with “fewer currently assigned tasks” are prioritized, the ranking would be in ascending order, starting with the employee that has the fewest currently assigned tasks.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify the combination of Petty and Lakhani by substituting the system of selecting reviewers with Perry’s system of selecting employees based on the fewest number of assigned tasks. Instead of being prioritized based on their reviewer rating as taught by Perry, the combined invention would utilize Perry’s system of ranking based on task amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to simply substitute in Petty’s reviewers in place of Perry’s employees, Petty’s submissions in place of Perry’s tasks, and Petty’s submitted reviews in place of Perry’s currently assigned tasks. This simple substitution of prior art elements would obtain the predictable result of selecting reviewers to assign submissions, based on having the fewest submitted reviews. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution as it would provide the benefit of equitably distributing reviews to ensure that all reviewers are doing equal work. (Perry[Col. 13 Lines 51-60])
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 17-20, and 23-29 distinguish over the prior art and would be allowable if the claims overcome the rejections under 101.
Regarding Claim 17:
Petty does not teach each and every limitation of amended claim 17, particularly the limitation of “repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers.” Neither Lakhani nor Perry address this deficiency. The examiner agrees that Petty does not specifically disclose the relationship between the pre-selected target number of submission reviews and the number of submission review ranks. Though Petty does describe a submission review rank module, the steps performed in Petty [0038] describe the process of determining whether the content qualifies for a second review process, not that Petty creates ranks in view of the pre-selected target number of reviews. Even after an updated search has been performed, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest this claim, even in an obvious combination. Due to the specificity of the conditional steps which require particular rules regarding the sequence in which the submissions are allocated according to “review ranks,” and combined with the requirement of “a pre-selected target number of submission reviewers by said plurality of reviewers” the claims are narrowed to a level which has not be taught or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 18-20, and 23-29 are directly or ultimately dependent on claim 17 and therefore also distinguish over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks filed on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the allowability of claims over prior art, the examiner originally indicated that previously presented claim 21 distinguishes over the prior art, therefore the amendments to claim 17 which now include the teachings of claims 21 and 22 also now distinguish over the prior art. Even after further search and consideration this remains true for the reasons provided above. Regarding Claim 30, however, despite the previous indication of subject matter distinguishing over prior art in claim 30, the amendments to claim 30 which rewrite the dependent claim in independent form including the elements of claim 17 are now rejected for being obvious over the prior art. This indication has been made after further search and consideration based on amended claim 30. Please see the rejection of claims 30 and 32-36 above for more information. Therefore claims 30 and 32-36 do not contain allowable subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Therefore, in response to the section titled 3. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. Section 102 are overcome, the examiner acknowledges that the rejections under 102 to claims 17 and its dependent claims have been overcome and the examiner agrees that claims 17-19 are not anticipated by Petty, resulting in a withdrawal of the 102 rejection based on amended claim 17 and its dependent claims 18-19.
In regards the applicant’s remark’s section 4. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 Are Overcome, the examiner clarifies that the rejections to claims 30, and 32-36 are not overcome based on the rejection provided in the present office action. The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s statements regarding the Graham factual inquiries and the Examiner’s burden of factually supporting any conclusion of obvious. The examiner asserts that the provided rationale in the rejections combining the prior art references are satisfactory for the intended purpose and the combinations remain satisfactory for the intended purposes.
The argument of A. Claim 20 is not Made Obvious by Petty in View of Foroutan is moot because claim 20 is also allowable by virtue of its dependency on amended claim 17, which has been deemed distinguished over the prior art.
Regarding applicant’s arguments under the section titled The Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 101 Are Overcome, the examiner respectfully disagrees and continues to uphold the rejections under 101. The applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant has not made substantial changes to the scope of the claims in order to overcome the rejections. In pages 9 – 11, the applicant merely describes the guidelines and finding of the office. In page 11, the remarks state “Applicant respectfully disagrees,” followed by the amended claims. It is not until page 13 of the remarks in which the applicant provides arguments which are addressed as follows. Firstly, in page 13, the applicant asserts that Claim 1 cannot fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” because “Claim 1 is not a method but directed to a physical device.” However, this argument is not persuasive because the “certain methods” do not pertain to the statutory category in which the claims are directed to, but to whether the activity itself falls into one of the sub-groupings. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above." Thus “certain methods of organizing human activity” does not exclude product claims. Furthermore, this is further clarified in regards to “mental processes,” in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D), “Examiners should keep in mind that both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim.” Furthermore, the examiner notes the definition of a process in MPEP 2106.03 states, “A process defines "actions", i.e., an invention that is claimed as an act or step, or a series of acts or steps. As defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(b), the term "process" is synonymous with "method." It is not necessary to identify a single category into which a claim falls, so long as it is clear that the claim falls into at least one category.” Therefore, being directed to a “physical device” is not a persuasive argument because it does not preclude the claims not reciting a series of acts or steps, and does not exclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes.”
Furthermore, the applicant’s remarks falsely claims that the MPEP clarifies: “The term “certain” qualifies this category description as a reminder that (1) not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract idea, and (2) this category description does not cover human operation of machines.” It is not clear where these statements are found in the MPEP and are a misquote. The actual statements regarding this topic in the MPEP state in 2106.04(a)(2)(II),
“The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”
Therefore, the actual citation above contradicts the applicant’s quotes, particularly the statement “certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping” which directly contradicts applicant’s point number 2.
For the same reasons above, the applicant’s argument that “human operation of machine...cannot be an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity” is not persuasive as it is an argument based on a misquote of the MPEP. The applicant is reminded that the “duty of candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56 applies to the applicant’s reply to a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, and requires that the applicant reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 with information reasonably and readily available.” (MPEP 704.12(a)) For prosecution purposes, unless the applicant is able to provide a direct quotation of the alleged MPEP guidelines regarding human operation of a machine, the applicant’s citation is viewed as having been made in error.
Moving forward, the applicant alleges that independent claims 17 and 30 is directed to non-abstract improvements to computer technology. However, after fully considering the applicant’s arguments, the examiner disagrees. Regarding the applicant’s arguments in page 14 that “it is unambiguously clear that the claims recite 1) a specific implementation – rather than just a result – of a specific solution to a problem in the computer arts; and 2) a particular improvement functionality” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant merely argues points 1) and 2) on the basis that the operation of the hardware implements the hierarchical structure (then recites the functions which have been deemed as part of the abstract idea). However, none of the arguments provided in pages 14-15 because no specific arguments have been made regarding how it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claim language reflects an improvement to a particular technological environment or field of use. None of the requirements in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), or MPEP 2106.05(a) have been fulfilled by the applicant in order to convince one of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement has been made. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), states “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
Furthermore, in line with MPEP 2106.05(f), the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the applicant has failed to show “that the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.” Secondly, the argument that the claims recite “a specific implementation – rather than just a result – of a specific practical application” is not persuasive because the claims do not aim to solve a problem in the software. The wording “specific implementation” is only found in MPEP 2106.05(a) indicating “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.”
Therefore, the “specific implementation” consideration does not apply to the present claims because MPEP 2106.05(a) requires a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, and not just merely the addition of generic computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea. The present claims are not directed to a technical problem in software, but to a certain method of organizing human activity under “managing personal behavior, interactions or relationships between people.” Secondly, the claims are no more than the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea. Thus the applicant’s arguments over 101 are not persuasive, and the rejections under 101 are upheld.
The examiner has fully considered the applicant’s remarks under “6. Note” but makes no further comments. Therefore, the status of the claims are clarified as follows:
-Claims 17-20, 23-30, and 32-36 remain pending and are considered herein.
-Claims 1-16, 21, 22, 31, and 37-48 have been cancelled without prejudice.
-Claims 17-20, 23-30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
-Claims 30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petty (US 20090119258 A1), in view of Lakhani et al. (US 9652742 B2) hereinafter Lakhani.
-Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petty (US 20090119258 A1),in view of Lakhani et al. (US 9652742 B2) hereinafter Lakhani, further in view of Perry et al. (US 11238380 B1) hereinafter Perry.
-Amended claims 17-20, and 23-29 distinguish over the prior art
Therefore, none of the pending claims are presently allowable, and all of the pending claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626