DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s original application filed April 13, 2023.
Claims 1-2 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
raising the threshold of votes needed when there are more votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds);
lowering the threshold where there are fewer votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds); and
The conditions under which the above steps are executed are not clear because the claim recites “more votes” and “fewer votes” without specifying what the number of votes is being compared to.
Additionally, the claim includes “(5 seconds)” and it is not clear if this is merely an example or a limit on what the timeframe can be.
Regarding claim 2
Claim 2 recites, in relevant part:
starting a timer for a given length of time (i.e., 60 seconds);
voting (one vote at a time or enter a bulk vote quantity (i.e., 25 votes total, or the like));
The phrase "or the like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, it is unclear if the language in parentheses is meant as an example or as a claim limitation. Usage of “i.e.” appears to be improper and is likely meant to be “e.g.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-2 falls within one of the four statutory categories. Each of claims 1-2 falls within the category of process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of voting. The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
A method for a threshold-based voting session, the method comprising:
clicking on votes or entering a bulk vote quantity;
raising the threshold of votes needed when there are more votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds);
lowering the threshold where there are fewer votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds); and
ending the voting when a threshold number of votes is achieved.
The italicized limitations above represent a method of voting, which is both a mental process and a method of organizing social interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are represented by the following bolded limitations:
A method for a threshold-based voting session, the method comprising:
clicking on votes or entering a bulk vote quantity;
raising the threshold of votes needed when there are more votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds);
lowering the threshold where there are fewer votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds); and
ending the voting when a threshold number of votes is achieved.
The only additional element is “clicking”. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application both because it is an alternative limitation and because it merely requires the method to be executed using a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are ‘human cognitive actions’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years.”
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
A method for timer-based voting session, the method comprising:
starting a timer for a given length of time (i.e., 60 seconds);
voting (one vote at a time or enter a bulk vote quantity (i.e., 25 votes total, or the like));
at the expiry of the timer, performing the voted action within a time period;
resetting the voting timer.
Claim 2 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1. The claim merely requires the aid of a timer to perform the abstract idea of voting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20150254918 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Miller teaches:
A method for a threshold-based voting session, the method comprising: ([0006] “The field of endeavor of present invention relates generally to social networking, and more particularly to systems, processes or methods of voting, vote casting, and expression of preference in social collaborations in which decisions are made.”)
clicking on votes or entering a bulk vote quantity; ([0033] “Social networks in the context of the present invention described herein, are any kind of social relationships or associations between a plurality of people, groups of people, companies, or programmable agent apparatus, collectively referred to as associated entities, and which may be represented by a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of labeled edges through which information may flow, and which may employ a device, such as a computer”)
Miller does not explicitly teach the votes be entered by clicking, but Miller teaches the invention being practiced on a computer, which at least implies voting input via clicking.
raising the threshold of votes needed when there are more votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds);
lowering the threshold where there are fewer votes during a given timeframe (5 seconds); and
When and where in these limitations are both interpreted as meaning that the steps of raising/lowering are executed conditionally, and therefore the steps are not necessary to perform the method.
ending the voting when a threshold number of votes is achieved. ([0052] “At the point in time at which a quorum threshold is achieved, additional voting is disallowed [ending]”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2012108646 A, English machine translation).
Regarding claim 2
Sato teaches:
A method for timer-based voting session, the method comprising:
starting a timer for a given length of time (i.e., 60 seconds); (page 6 paragraph 5 “In managing the voting time, for example, the timers in each ATM 101 are synchronized based on time information periodically notified from the computer 173 of the election management committee. The electronic voting control unit 202 automatically controls a predetermined voting start time and voting end time”)
voting (one vote at a time or enter a bulk vote quantity (i.e., 25 votes total, or the like)); (page 6 paragraph 5 “and accepts voting by the electronic voting card 102 only within the voting time.”)
at the expiry of the timer, performing the voted action within a time period; (page 3 paragraph 4 “In the case of a municipal election, such as a local election, a vote record is created based on the result of counting by the computer 173 of the election management committee and the winner is determined.”)
Determining the winner at least implies performing the voted action in the context of an election. “Within a time period” does not create any limitation since there is no limit on what the time period can be.
resetting the voting timer.
Merely repeating the steps of Sato to perform a subsequent election would include resetting the timer and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Cash et al. (US 11769154 B1) teaches:
column 23 line 43 “In some implementations, a threshold number of votes may be determined (508) that is needed to approve the transaction. The threshold may be set low enough to ensure that transactions are processed rapidly while still high enough to prevent fraudulent transactions.”
Lyon (US 20230096614 A1) teaches:
[0053] “Any voting transaction requests determined to be received by processor 200 outside of the predetermined voting contest time period may be ignored by processor 200 and one or more of the computer nodes 108-116 may generate a message to the registered voter who voted early or late, informing the registered voter that his or her vote did not get counted because it was cast too early or too late.”
Chen (US 20140089062 A1) teaches:
[0049] “In special situations where the number of the secret voting certificate request data packages cannot reach the threshold parameter, special strategies can be used, such as a strategy of waiting for time-out, waiting for a few minutes and then submitting the data packages to the PKI/CA module 171. The waiting time period can be set according to the actual situation, which can be a positive integer greater than 1.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698