DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 14-16, and 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 2 and 5, “a corresponding one or more computing devices” should read “the corresponding one or more computing devices” or “the one or more computing devices”.
Claim 2, line 3, “the second content” should read “the second content of the plurality of content”.
Claim 2, line 8, “one or more computing devices” should read “the one or more computing devices”.
Claim 2, line 12, “the corresponding computing device” should read “the corresponding one or more computing devices” or “the one or more computing devices”.
Claim 6, line 2, “the distributed content” should read “the plurality of distributed content”.
Claim 8, line 1, “the plurality of content” should read “the plurality of distributed content”.
Claim 8, line 6, “the contained code” should read “the code”.
Claim 11, lines 3 and 5, “a corresponding one or more computing devices” should read “the corresponding one or more computing devices” or “the one or more computing devices”.
Claim 11, line 4, “the second content” should read “the second content of the plurality of content”.
Claim 11, line 8, “one or more computing devices” should read “the one or more computing devices”.
Claim 11, line 12, “the corresponding computing device” should read “the corresponding one or more computing devices” or “the one or more computing devices”.
Claim 14, line 1, “the plurality of content” should read “the plurality of distributed content”.
Claim 14, line 4, “the provided code” should read “the code”.
Claim 15, line 3, “the visual object” should read “the one or more visual objects”.
Claim 16, line 3, “a graphical user interface (GUI)” should read “the GUI”.
Claim 16, line 4, “an editor” should read “the editor”.
Claim 16, line 4, “one or more visual objects” should read “the one or more visual objects”.
Claim 19, line 1, “the plurality of content” should read “the plurality of distributed content”.
Claim 19, line 4, “the provided code” should read “the code”.
Claim 20, line 2, “the visual objects” should read “the one or more visual objects”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 10 and 17, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
A method, comprising: distributing a plurality of content, by a computing system, over a network to one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of distributed content configured to include at least one of text and code; providing each of the one or more computing devices with an editor configured to, at least in part, edit, display, and process each of the plurality of distributed content in real-time; and displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the editor and a first content of the plurality of distributed content on at least one of the one or more computing devices; wherein the first content of the plurality of distributed content is displayed, on the GUI, concurrently on the one or more computing devices.
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 10 and 17) recites an abstract idea included in the groupings of mental processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., computing devices, processor, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “processing each of the plurality of distributed content in real-time”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. In the specification of the current invention, the plurality of distributed content can include questions, instructions, text, code, media, or other materials (¶62) and interpreting this information is a process that can be done in the mind. Furthermore, the IDE can be configured to compile, interpret, build, or execute code in ¶65 and some of these processes can be done in the mind (interpreting or executing code). These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to steps/concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “computing devices, processor”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of computing devices and processors are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement the processing of information (such as code or text) as evidence by Kubota et al. (US 20100115587 A1; hereinafter Kubota). Kubota discloses that conventional computers are used to process information in ¶72. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chong et al. (US 20160093232 A1; Chong).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Chong discloses a method, comprising: distributing a plurality of content (plurality of content shown in Fig 13 or 27E), by a computing system, over a network to one or more computing devices (running software on a group of networked computers; ¶165), each of the plurality of distributed content configured to include at least one of text and code (text and code included; ¶166 and Fig 13); providing each of the one or more computing devices with an editor configured to (code editor in the IDE; ¶189), at least in part, edit (¶189), display (displayed in Fig 13), and process each of the plurality of distributed content in real-time (real time modifications for the code; ¶189); and displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the editor and a first content of the plurality of distributed content on at least one of the one or more computing devices (code editor and the first content can be the instruction at the top middle section of Fig 13); wherein the first content of the plurality of distributed content is displayed, on the GUI, concurrently on the one or more computing devices (first content displayed on the GUI as shown in Fig 13). Regarding additional limitations of claim 10, Chong discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶227) comprising instructions stored therein (software instructions; ¶4), which, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system cause the one or more processors to perform operations (microprocessors; ¶222). Regarding additional limitations of claim 17, Chong discloses a processor (microprocessors; ¶222); and memory in communication with the processor (memory elements; ¶222) and storing instructions that (inherent to a computer), when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to: retrieve a plurality of content from a database (content retrieved from database; ¶99).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Chong discloses further comprising distributing, by the computing system, a second content of the plurality of content to each of a corresponding one or more computing devices concurrently (text and code in the editor as shown in Fig 13 as the second content), and displaying, via the GUI, the second content, after at least one of: receiving an input, via the GUI, from a corresponding one or more computing devices (editor is designed to receive input), responsive to the first content of the plurality of distributed content by the computing system (this code is responsive and related to the first content in the top middle instructions shown in Fig 13), or initiating a communication, by one or more computing devices, with the computing system to receive, via the GUI, the second content of the plurality of distributed content, or a predetermined amount of time elapses for displaying, via the GUI, the first content of the plurality of distributed content for the corresponding computing device.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 18, Chong discloses wherein the editor is configured to include an integrated development environment (IDE), (implementing IDE; ¶166) and processing each of the plurality of distributed content in real-time (IDE inherently processes code in real time by parsing it and analyzing it) further comprises using the IDE to edit the code within each of the plurality of distributed content (IDE to edit code; ¶189), wherein the IDE is configured to provide visual cues to assist in editing the code (arrows acting as visual cues in Fig 13 but also syntax highlighting, code completion or error detection can work as visual cues and are inherent features of an IDE).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Chong discloses wherein the editor is configured to include an integrated development environment (IDE) (implementing IDE; ¶166), and processing each of the plurality of distributed content in real-time (IDE inherently processes code in real time by parsing it and analyzing it) further comprises using the IDE to interpret the code provided in each of the plurality of distributed content (code being executed also counts as being interpreted, otherwise code can't be executed if it hasn't been interpreted; ¶107).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 19, Chong discloses wherein each of the plurality of content further comprises a question (questions can be part of the content; ¶163), each of the one or more computing devices obtains and displays, via the GUI, the same question concurrently (for example, a question displayed in Fig 27E), and the editor is configured to, via the GUI, display (Displayed in Fig 27E), edit (editable text fields as described in ¶221 and shown in Fig 27E inside of the block of code like "move 10 steps" where the "10" can be edited) and compile the provided code in each question (IDE can compile code, which would include the code in each question; ¶189).
Regarding claim 6, Chong discloses wherein at least one of the one or more computing devices is configured to display, via the GUI, the distributed content and at least one of: a file manager (file containing a plurality of software instructions in ¶4 and an IDE inherently has a file manager to manage these files) and access to the editor (this is the function of the file editor).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, Chong discloses wherein one or more portions of the code are provided as one or more visual objects (code blocks; Fig 27E), wherein each of the one or more visual objects is configured to be displayed, via the GUI, on the one or more computing devices (displayed on Fig 27E), wherein placement of each of the one or more visual objects in an active region of the display of the one or more computing devices (work area 96 in Fig 13 or the code blocks area is the active area as shown in Fig 27E) runs the corresponding code contained within each of the one or more visual objects placed on the active region of the display (code blocks are executed/ran in ¶75).
Regarding claim 8, Chong discloses wherein the plurality of content further comprises one or more visual objects (code blocks; Fig 27E), wherein the code is contained within the one or more visual objects (code inside the code blocks; Fig 27E), and wherein each of the one or more visual objects is configured to be displayed, via the GUI, on the one or more computing devices (displayed in Fig 27), and wherein placement of each of the one or more visual objects in an active region of the display of the one or more computing devices (work area 96 in Fig 13 or the code blocks area is the active area as shown in Fig 27E) runs the contained code on the one or more computing devices (code blocks are executed/ran in ¶75).
Regarding claim 9, Chong discloses wherein at least one of the one or more visual objects displayed, via the GUI, on the one or more computing devices further comprises one or more fillable regions for configuring the code (editable text fields as described in ¶221 and shown in Fig 27E inside of the block of code like "move 10 steps" where the "10" can be edited).
Regarding claim 16, Chong discloses further comprising providing information, by the computing system, to at least one of the one or more computing devices for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) (information shown in Fig 13 or 27E), the GUI being configured to include an editor for displaying code in textual format or as one or more visual objects (code displayed as visual objects through code blocks; Fig 27E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715