DETAILED ACTION
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 on July 21, 2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 corrected submission filed on October 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8, 13, and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant states, “By having each end-device be inherently unlinked to the identity of the voter, such that each end-device does not collect or send personalized data, several technical improvements may be facilitated. By not collecting personalized data from the participant, each end-device may require less processing time (fewer pieces of information being recorded means the voting data may be recorded faster) and less storage space (since no storage space is being utilized to store personal data, the device will not require as much storage space to hold the recorded voting data).” (Page 11 of Applicant’s response) There is no technical improvement achieved by the additional elements in withholding information that would otherwise identify a participant. Simply not providing identifying information of a participant in association with an end-device or a voting module or toggling an illumination option to the “off” mode does not require anything more than generic processing devices. There is no special arrangement of the processing device that achieves anonymity of a voting participant either. The anonymity simply comes from the fact that a participant’s identity is not required to be provided and/or a participant’s vote is not presented on a display and/or it does not trigger an illumination display. This is analogous to conducting a vote by paper ballot and not requiring any participants to put their names on their submitted paper ballots. The additional elements are only generally applied to implement an anonymous vote and they provide a general link to technology.
Additionally, processing less information, be it by a human user or by a processing device, inherently uses less resources. Simply managing less information alone does not necessarily present a technical solution to a technical problem.
Similar arguments are made throughout pages 13-15 of Applicant’s response. The Examiner maintains her position, as presented above and in the rejection.
Regarding the art rejections, Applicant submits that the cited prior art references do not address the claim amendments (pages 16-29 of Applicant’s response). The Robson reference has been introduced into the rejections in order to help address the current claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“survey module” (configured to transmit a question) in claim 8
“voting module” (configured to record participant responses) in claim 8
“numeration module” (configured to receive voting data…and automatically produce and display survey results) in claim 8
“data management module” (configured to store voting data and survey results) in claim 8
“numeration module” (configured to transmit voting data…and process voting data…) in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 have been amended to recite “wherein each end-device [claims 1, 13]/voting module [claim 8] is configured to be portable and maintain anonymity of the corresponding participant by being unlinked to the identity of the corresponding participant, such that each response collected by each end-device [claims 1, 13]/voting module [claim 8] cannot be linked to the corresponding participant.” While Applicant’s original disclosure explains, “In addition to allowing voters to anonymously vote on issues by preventing a voting light from displaying their answer to nearby individuals, the voting device may also be configured to maintain the anonymity of the voter by not being attached, linked, or associated to the identity of the voter in any way, such that responses collected from a voting device cannot be linked to an individual using it.” (Spec: ¶ 57), the use of the word “cannot” implies that it would be totally impossible to link the individual to the voting end-device/module used to cast a vote. Similarly, as explained in ¶ 85 of Applicant’s Specification, an anonymity button may be toggled to “off” so that no light reflecting a voter’s response is revealed visually. However, the problem remains that the use of the word “cannot” implies that it would be totally impossible to link the individual to the voting end-device/module used to cast a vote. While anonymity may be preserved in regard to parties viewing a display of voting information by not displaying voting information for a particular voter, this is not the same as the voter not being capable of being associated at all with the voting end-device/module used to cast a vote. For example, Applicant’s Specification does not describe an active series of steps performed to ensure that the voter is never associated with the voting end-device/module used. It is one thing to say that the identifying information of a voter is not displayed, for example, and this is supported and enabled by Applicant’s original disclosure; however, Applicant’s Specification fails to convey how it would be guaranteed that a voting end-device/module “cannot be [i.e., is not capable of being] linked to the corresponding participant.” Thus, this limitation (particularly the use of “cannot” as an implied absolute guarantee) was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “remote surveying in real time” (Spec: ¶ 2) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 13-20), Apparatus (claims 1-12)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 1] receive a response from a corresponding participant and automatically generate corresponding voting data in real-time;
broadcast a question to each participant;
receive voting data;
receive voting data from the at least one data collector and compile the voting data to form a complete dataset;
process the complete dataset to automatically generate survey results in real-time; and
query the data to allow an end user to access the survey results in real-time.
[Claim 8] transmit a question to participants and have the question be received by the participants;
record participant responses to the question, automatically generate voting data and transmit the voting data;
receive voting data from the voting module and automatically produce and display survey results in real-time; and
store voting data and survey results.
[Claim 13] A method of real-time remote surveying comprising the steps of:
broadcasting a question;
facilitating the receipt of the question by a plurality of participants;
allowing each participant of the plurality of participants to input a response to the question;
generating voting data automatically in real-time from each participant's input response;
facilitating the transmission of the voting data;
transmitting voting data;
storing the voting data, the voting data transmitted being compiled into a complete dataset;
processing the complete dataset into survey results; and
allowing an end user to access the survey results in real-time.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “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. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user could convey questions to a voting user, receive responses from the voting user, record the voting data and survey results, determine which responses to ignore based on a voting period, analyze the voting data, generate survey results, and display survey results mentally and/or with the use of pen and paper. Allowing someone to transmit a question over a radio or via radio transmission is simply a granting of permission, which a human user can perform. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “remote surveying in real time” (Spec: ¶ 2), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of marketing and interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Filtering parameters to the complete dataset prior to processing the complete dataset into survey results, as recited in claim 16, is an example of filtering content. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) cites the following as an example of managing personal behavior, i.e., organizing human activity: “filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) cites the following as an example of a mental process: “An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.”
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a real-time remote surveying system comprising: a plurality of end-devices configured to receive a response and generate voting data, wherein each end-device is configured to be portable and maintain anonymity of the corresponding participant by being unlinked to the identity of the corresponding participant, such that each response collected by each end-device cannot be linked to the corresponding participant; a broadcasting system configured to broadcast a question, at least one data collector configured to be in data communication with each end-devices of the plurality of end-devices and the internet, each data collector of the at least one data collector being configured to receive voting data from each end-device of the plurality of end-devices, each data collector comprising a corresponding transceiver configured to receive the voting data from each end device of the plurality of end devices; a datacenter configured to be in data communication with the internet, such that the datacenter is in data communication with the at least one data collector, the datacenter comprising: an application server having a plurality of modules configured to facilitate operation of the real-time remote surveying system; and a database server in data communication with the application server, the database server being configured to receive voting data from the at least one data collector and compile the voting data from each data collector to form a complete dataset; the datacenter is configured to process the complete dataset; and a client machine configured to be in data communication with the internet, such that the client machine is in data communication with the datacenter, the client machine being configured to query the datacenter to allow an end user to access the survey results in real-time. In claim 1, the additional elements generally implement the gathering of voting data, transmission of voting data, receipt of responses to questions, storage of voting data, and access to the voting data at a high level of generality.
Regarding the limitation “wherein each end-device is configured to be portable and maintain anonymity of the corresponding participant by being unlinked to the identity of the corresponding participant, such that each response collected by each end-device cannot be linked to the corresponding participant,´ the end-device simply is not directly assigned to the identity of a participant using the device. Functionality that would actively prevent anyone from identifying a linkage between the end-device and a participant is not actively performed by the end-device itself; therefore, any generic processing device can be used as long as it is not directly associated with an identified participant.
Claim 8 incorporates various modules to generally implement the operations corresponding to the abstract ideas. In claim 8, the additional elements generally implement the gathering of voting data, transmission of voting data, receipt of responses to questions, storage of voting data, and access to the voting data at a high level of generality.
Claim 8 recites wherein the voting module is configured to maintain participant anonymity by being unlinked to the identities of the participants, such that each response recorded by the voting module cannot be linked to a corresponding participant. Regarding this limitation, the voting module is not directly assigned to the identity of a participant using the voting module. Functionality that would actively prevent anyone from identifying a linkage between the voting module and a participant is not actively performed by the voting module itself; therefore, any generic processing device can be used as long as it is not directly associated with an identified participant.
Claim 13 includes an end-device to facilitate data transmission, at least one data collector and a datacenter to facilitate data storage, and allows an end user to access the survey results in real-time through a client machine in data communication with the datacenter. Claim 13 recites wherein the audit system is communicatively isolated from the datacenter, such that the voting data collected by the audit system data collector is configured to be stored and processed independently from the voting data received by the datacenter. The additional elements are generic processing elements.
Claim 13 recites wherein each end-device is configured to be portable and maintain anonymity of the corresponding participant by being unlinked to the identity of the corresponding participant, such that each response collected by each end-device cannot be linked to the corresponding participant. Regarding this limitation, the end-device simply is not directly assigned to the identity of a participant using the device. Functionality that would actively prevent anyone from identifying a linkage between the end-device and a participant is not actively performed by the end-device itself; therefore, any generic processing device can be used as long as it is not directly associated with an identified participant.
Further addressing the maintenance of anonymity recited in the independent claims, there is no technical improvement achieved by the additional elements in withholding information that would otherwise identify a participant. Simply not providing identifying information of a participant in association with an end-device or a voting module or toggling an illumination option to the “off” mode does not require anything more than generic processing devices. There is no special arrangement of the processing device that achieves anonymity of a voting participant either. The anonymity simply comes from the fact that a participant’s identity is not required to be provided and/or a participant’s vote is not presented on a display and/or it does not trigger an illumination display. This is analogous to conducting a vote by paper ballot and not requiring any participants to put their names on their submitted paper ballots. The additional elements are only generally applied to implement an anonymous vote and they provide a general link to technology.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 24-25, 37, 51, 59, 71-79).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the question is a survey question.
[Claim 3] display the response from the corresponding participant to nearby individuals.
[Claim 4] automatically record GPS coordinates of the end-device in real-time when the response is received.
[Claim 5] collect voting data by collecting voting data through observation of a corresponding lighting system that simultaneously displays the corresponding participant response through illumination of the lighting system for collection, and transmit the generated voting data; and
store voting data and process the voting results collected into local survey results, wherein the voting data is accessible to the general public, such that a member of the general public may access the local survey results generated without interfacing with the datacenter.
[Claim 6] receive voting data from participants that are driving vehicles on the freeway.
[Claim 7] a time lock configured to ignore responses from a participant if a response has already been received from the participant within a voting period, and ignore responses from a participant that are not received during a voting period.
[Claim 9] broadcast the question and receive the question.
[Claim 10] receive a yes or no answer from a participant,
display the corresponding participant's response to nearby individuals, and
transmit voting data.
[Claim 11] transmit voting data and process voting data received into survey results.
[Claim 12] store voting data and survey results and allow for a query to be performed.
[Claim 14] allowing a member of the public to audit local survey results,
collect voting data by collecting voting data through observation of a corresponding lighting system that simultaneously displays the corresponding participant response through illumination of the lighting system for collection, and transmit the generated voting data;
process the voting data into local survey results.
[Claim 15] wherein broadcasting a question is performed by broadcasting a question to be received by a participant.
[Claim 16] accepting filtering parameters from an end user and applying the filtering parameters to the complete dataset prior to processing the complete dataset into survey results.
[Claim 17] wherein the voting data automatically generated comprises a corresponding participant's anonymously submitted response and metadata.
[Claim 18] the metadata comprising GPS coordinates at which the corresponding participant input the response, a time the participant input the response, and a device ID unique to the corresponding end-device.
[Claim 19] wherein the step of broadcasting a question comprises:
providing a question to a radio station operator;
allowing the radio station operator to transmit the question over radio transmission.
[Claim 20] displaying information based upon the corresponding participant's response.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “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. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user could convey questions to a voting user, receive responses from the voting user, record the voting data and survey results, determine which responses to ignore based on a voting period, analyze the voting data, generate survey results, and display survey results mentally and/or with the use of pen and paper. Allowing someone to transmit a question over a radio or via radio transmission is simply a granting of permission, which a human user can perform. A human user can also observe voting data based on particular illumination emitted from a lighting system. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “remote surveying in real time” (Spec: ¶ 2), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of marketing and interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Filtering parameters to the complete dataset prior to processing the complete dataset into survey results, as recited in claim 16, is an example of filtering content. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) cites the following as an example of managing personal behavior, i.e., organizing human activity: “filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) cites the following as an example of a mental process: “An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.”
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the independent claim from which each depends.
Claim 1 recites a real-time remote surveying system comprising: a plurality of end-devices configured to receive a response and generate voting data, wherein each end-device is configured to be portable and maintain anonymity of the corresponding participant by being unlinked to the identity of the corresponding participant, such that each response collected by each end-device cannot be linked to the corresponding participant; a broadcasting system configured to broadcast a question, at least one data collector configured to be in data communication with each end-devices of the plurality of end-devices and the internet, each data collector of the at least one data collector being configured to receive voting data from each end-device of the plurality of end-devices, each data collector comprising a corresponding transceiver configured to receive the voting data from each end device of the plurality of end devices; a datacenter configured to be in data communication with the internet, such that the datacenter is in data communication with the at least one data collector, the datacenter comprising: an application server having a plurality of modules configured to facilitate operation of the real-time remote surveying system; and a database server in data communication with the application server, the database server being configured to receive voting data from the at least one data collector and compile the voting data from each data collector to form a complete dataset; the datacenter is configured to process the complete dataset; and a client machine configured to be in data communication with the internet, such that the client machine is in data communication with the datacenter, the client machine being configured to query the datacenter to allow an end user to access the survey results in real-time. In claim 1, the additional elements generally implement the gathering of voting data, transmission of voting data, receipt of responses to questions, storage of voting data, and access to the voting data at a high level of generality.
Regarding the limitation “wherein each end-device is configured to be portable and maintain anonymity of the corresponding participant by being unlinked to the identity of the corresponding participant, such that each response collected by each end-device cannot be linked to the corresponding participant,´ the end-device simply is not directly assigned to the identity of a participant using the device. Functionality that would actively prevent anyone from identifying a linkage between the end-device and a participant is not actively performed by the end-device itself; therefore, any generic processing device can be used as long as it is not directly associated with an identified participant.
Claim 3 recites each end-device of the plurality of end-devices comprising a lighting system configured to display the response from the corresponding participant to nearby individuals. Any generic electronic display is, in effect, a lighting system used to present information.
Claim 4 recites each end-device of the plurality of end-devices comprising a GPS system configured to automatically record GPS coordinates of the end-device in real-time when the response is received. The end devices are simply used to transmit GPS information.
Claim 5 includes an audit system, the audit system comprising: an audit system data collector in data communication with the plurality of end-devices, the audit system data collector being configured to collect voting data from the plurality of end-devices, wherein the audit system data collector comprises an audit camera configured to collect voting data through observation of a corresponding lighting system of each end-device of the plurality of end devices, such that each end device is configured to simultaneously display the corresponding participant response through illumination of the lighting system, for collection by the audit system data collector, and transmit the generated voting data using the corresponding transceiver, for collection by the at least one data collector in data communication with the data center; and an audit processing system configured to store voting data collected from the plurality of end-devices and process the voting results collected from each end-device into local survey results, wherein the audit system is configured to be accessible to the general public, such that a member of the general public may access the local survey results generated by the audit system without interfacing with the datacenter. Claim 5 recites wherein the audit system is communicatively isolated from the datacenter, such that the voting data collected by the audit system data collector is configured to be stored and processed independently from the voting data received by the datacenter. The details of the audit system incorporate generic processing elements to collect and store data and allow for the data to be accessible. Displaying output and illumination from a lighting system are also generic processing operations.
Claim 6 recites wherein each data collector is configured to be positioned on a freeway, such that each data collector is configured to receive voting data from participants that are driving vehicles on the freeway. The data collector is a generic processing element used to gather information.
Claim 7 recites each end-device of the plurality of end-devices comprising a time lock configured to ignore responses from a participant if the end-device has already received a response from the participant within a voting period, and ignore responses from a participant that are not received during a voting period. The end-devices are generic processing elements to facilitate data transmission and to filter out certain information.
Claim 8 incorporates various modules to generally implement the operations corresponding to the abstract ideas. In claim 8, the additional elements generally implement the gathering of voting data, transmission of voting data, receipt of responses to questions, storage of voting data, and access to the voting data at a high level of generality.
Claim 8 recites wherein the voting module is configured to maintain participant anonymity by being unlinked to the identities of the participants, such that each response recorded by the voting module cannot be linked to a corresponding participant. Regarding this limitation, the voting module is not directly assigned to the identity of a participant using the voting module. Functionality that would actively prevent anyone from identifying a linkage between the voting module and a participant is not actively performed by the voting module itself; therefore, any generic processing device can be used as long as it is not directly associated with an identified participant.
Claim 9 includes a radio station configured to broadcast a question and a radio configured to receive the question. A radio station is simply a generic link to technology and conveys generic means to transmit information.
Claim 10 includes an end-device having a user input interface configured to receive a yes or no answer from a participant, a lighting system configured to display the corresponding participant's response to nearby individuals, and a transceiver configured to transmit voting data from the end-device to the numeration module. The end-device is a generic processing element. The user input interface and a lighting system are examples of generic display elements and any generic electronic display is, in effect, a lighting system used to present information.
Claim 11 includes a data collector having a transceiver, the numeration being configured to transmit voting data from the voting module to the data management module and process voting data received from the voting module into survey results through cloud computing. The data collector, transceiver, numeration module, and cloud computing all present generic processing elements. The cloud environment is also a general link to technology.
Claim 12 includes a database server configured to store voting data and survey results on a database and allow the numeration module to query the database. The database server and numeration modules are generic processing elements.
Claim 13 includes an end-device to facilitate data transmission, at least one data collector and a datacenter to facilitate data storage, and allows an end user to access the survey results in real-time through a client machine in data communication with the datacenter. Claim 13 recites wherein the audit system is communicatively isolated from the datacenter, such that the voting data collected by the audit system data collector is configured to be stored and processed independently from the voting data received by the datacenter. The additional elements are generic processing elements.
Claim 13 recites wherein each end-device is configured to be portable and maintain anonymity of the corresponding participant by being unlinked to the identity of the corresponding participant, such that each response collected by each end-device cannot be linked to the corresponding participant. Regarding this limitation, the end-device simply is not directly assigned to the identity of a participant using the device. Functionality that would actively prevent anyone from identifying a linkage between the end-device and a participant is not actively performed by the end-device itself; therefore, any generic processing device can be used as long as it is not directly associated with an identified participant.
Claim 14 recites allowing a member of the public to audit local survey results using an audit system, the audit system comprising an audit system data collector configured to collect voting data from each end-device and an audit processing system configured to process the voting data from each end-device into local survey results. Claim 14 recites wherein the audit system is communicatively isolated from the datacenter, such that the voting data collected by the audit system data collector is configured to be stored and processed independently from the voting data received by the datacenter. The details of the audit system incorporate generic processing elements to collect and process data and allow for the data to be accessible.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the audit system data collector comprises an audit camera configured to collect voting data through observation of a corresponding lighting system of each end-device, such that each end device is configured to simultaneously display the corresponding participant response through illumination of the corresponding lighting system and transmit the generated voting data to the at least one data collector using a corresponding transceiver of the corresponding end-device.” Displaying output and illumination from a lighting system are also generic processing operations.
Claim 15 recites that broadcasting a question is performed by broadcasting a radio signal having a question to be received by a participant's radio. A radio is simply a generic link to technology and the radio signal and radio convey generic means to transmit (e.g., broadcast and receive) information.
Claim 17 only presents the end-device to define how the voting data was created, which (at best) is a general link to technology.
Claim 19 simply allows the radio station operator to transmit the question over radio transmission, which is a granting of permission as opposed to any explicit use of technology. At best, the potential use of a radio transmission is a general application of the additional element to the abstract ideas and a general link to technology.
Claim 20 recites illuminating a voter light disposed on each end-device based upon the corresponding participant's response. Any generic electronic display, in effect, illuminates lights on a screen in a manner used to present information in a format that is comprehensible to a user.
Further addressing the maintenance of anonymity recited in the independent claims, there is no technical improvement achieved by the additional elements in withholding information that would otherwise identify a participant. Simply not providing identifying information of a participant in association with an end-device or a voting module or toggling an illumination option to the “off” mode does not require anything more than generic processing devices. There is no special arrangement of the processing device that achieves anonymity of a voting participant either. The anonymity simply comes from the fact that a participant’s identity is not required to be provided and/or a participant’s vote is not presented on a display and/or it does not trigger a