DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to applicant’s response 8/11/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are amended. Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are newly added. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 21 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). Claims 8, 11-14 and 22 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine). Claims 15, 18-20 and 23 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole is directed towards the abstract idea of receiving, via a user interface, a selection to organize a plurality of items displayed on the user interface, wherein the plurality of items include at least a first item, a second item, and a third item, the plurality of items are stored in the database, the first item is associated with a first value that determines a first rank, the second item is associated with a second value that determines a second rank, the third item is associated with a third value that determines a third rank, the displaying on the user interface shows relative ranks of the first item, the second item, and the third item to each other, each of the first value, the second value, and the third value is a string value comprising a plurality of characters, and the first value, the second value, and the third value are each a different plurality of characters from each other; (these limitations are insignificant data gathering elements) detecting a re-ranking of the first item, wherein the re-ranking further comprises calculating a fourth value comprised of a fourth plurality of characters different from the first value, the second value, and the third value, the fourth value determines a midrank between the second rank and the third ranks, and the calculating is performed by: calculating a first midvalue based on a comparison of a first character of the second value and a first character of the third value; not changing the second value associated with the second item; not changing the third value associated with the third item; assigning the first midvalue to the first item that determines a fourth rank, wherein the fourth rank is between the second rank and the third rank; and automatically moving the first item between the second item and the third item on the user interface based on the fourth rank being between the second rank and the third rank.
The determining limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as steps of detecting re ranking can be reasonably perform in human mind and hence falls under bucket of metal process. Steps of comprises calculating a fourth value comprised of a fourth plurality of characters different from the first value, the second value, and the third value, the fourth value determines a midrank between the second rank and the third ranks, and the calculating is performed by: calculating a first midvalue based on a comparison of a first character of the second value and a first character of the third value; not changing the second value associated with the second item; not changing the third value associated with the third item; assigning the first midvalue to the first item that determines a fourth rank, wherein the fourth rank is between the second rank and the third rank; are directed toward an abstract idea bucket of metathetical concepts.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the additional elements of the interface, processor(s) and non-transitory computer-readable medium fail to recite a practical application because they are instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instructions to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, the additional elements of the interface, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because they are instructions to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Dependent claims further recites abstract idea without any additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 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 15 as amended recites, not changing the second value associated with the second item; not changing the third value associated with the third item; which is not described in the specification, in contrast specification describes change in value which leads to change in rank, (paragraph [0028] In some embodiments, if there is no available characters between two different ranks (e.g., rank 4 is cA and rank 5 is cB), then if item 2 was to be moved between items 4 and 5,ranker 120 may add an appended value 130 to rank 4, for the new value of rank 2 for item 2. In the example above, the appended value 130 may be "0", such that rank 2 may be given the value "cA0". This may allow for new items to be inserted between items 4 and 2, or items 2 and 5. However, this may only be done up until a max length 128 is reached.)
Allowable Subject Matter over prior art
James (US 2020/0142545) teaches, receiving, via a user interface, a selection to organize a plurality of items displayed on the user interface, wherein the plurality of items include at least a first item, a second item, and a third item; determining that the plurality of items are ranked relative to each other, wherein a rank of each of the plurality of items comprises a string value; detecting a re-ranking of the first item, wherein the re-ranking moves the first item between the second item and the third item; calculating a midrank between a second rank of the second item and a third rank of the third item, wherein the midrank comprises a string value between the second rank and the third rank; assigning the midrank a first rank of the first item; and automatically moving the first item between the second item and the third item on the user interface based on a comparison of the first rank, second rank, and third rank.
Andel (US 6,782,427 B1) teaches Referring to FIG. 4, Item List 90 is a list of ordered pairs called Page Items 100. The first element 110 of each Page Item is an Item Type. The second element 120 of each Page Item is a pointer to a data structure. As is explained in more detail below, the Item Type determines how the data contained in the data structure is to be interpreted. The data server of the invention recognizes at least the following Item Types: In a Resource Object 60 of Type TEXT, information in each Page Item 100 in the Item List 90 is used by the data server engine to generate a data fragment (e.g. an ASCII string) which will constitute part of the web page information transmitted to the requesting web browser. The TEXT file represented by the Resource Object 60 corresponds to the concatenation of all such data fragments produced by the data server engine from the Page Items 100 in the Item List 90.
Sahu (US 9098637 B1) teaches he rank configuration command may include a variety of selectable options. Some of these options may include, but are not limited to, rank element, rank result, metric weight, best "N" runs, metric cost, initial include runs, target cumulative goal, output rank file name, etc. For example, in the rank element option, a user may select rank elements for which coverage grading is calculated during ranking process 10. The rank element may be either type (/module) or instances/instances hierarchy or covergroup elements (covergroup/coverpoint) or assertions. In some embodiments, modules may be specified through -type option, instances or instances hierarchies can be specified through -inst. The fact that ranking needs to be performed on covergroup elements may be specified through -covergroup/-coverpoint options. Similarly, ranking on assertion may be specified through -assertion option. In some embodiments, if a coverage element is missing then the ranking process may be performed for the entire model. In the rank result option a ranked result may be saved in a file specified through option -out (e.g. an ASCII file). In some embodiments, the file specification may contain the path (/) separator. If the path separator is not there then the result file may be saved in the current working directory. In case of a missing output option, the rank result may not be saved to the disk. In the metric weight option, a weight may be specified to each coverage types. For example, -w_block, -w_expression, -w_toggle, -w_fsm, -w_assertion, -w_covergroup may correspond to the weight for block, expression, toggle, finite state machine ("fsm"), assertion and covergroup respectively. If a weight is not specified then the default weight may be assumed as "1". Alternatively, if a user wants to exclude any coverage types then its weight can be specified as "0". In the metric cost option the ranking cost may be either the CPU time (-cpu) or simulation time (-sim). In some embodiments, the CPU time may refer to the sum of the user CPU time and system CPU time (tms_utime+tms_utime). If the coverage time option is specified then the time may be included in the calculation of total coverage weight. In some embodiments, in a default setting, the cost parameter may not be included in the coverage weight calculation while ranking. In some embodiments, the user may select the option -max to identify the "N" best runs. In this way, ranking process 10 may conclude after computing the best N runs. The best "N" runs may not include the count of redundant runs. In some embodiments, ranking process 10 may list only those redundant runs which are computed prior to stopping. Another rank configuration option includes the best runs to achieve target coverage goals. Here, the user may specify the option -target to stop the ranking after achieving the target cumulative coverage goal. Again, ranking process 10 may list only those redundant runs which are computed prior to stopping. Yet another rank configuration option is the option for initial include runs. Here, the user may specify the option -initial_runfile to specify the run file which contains the run specification that must be included before performing the ranking operation. In some embodiments, the initial include runs may be reported at the beginning of the ranking result in the same order as it is specified in the run file specification. As shown in FIG. 7, once the ranking process has completed the results may be stored in memory using the WriteRankResult function/algorithm.
Upon further searching various databases following limitations are not fairly taught by prior arts that teaches limitation in combination of other limitations of claim, “calculating a fourth value comprised of a fourth plurality of characters different from the first value, the second value, and the third value, the fourth value determines a midrank between the second rank and the third ranks, and the calculating is performed by: calculating a first midvalue based on a comparison of a first character of the second value and a first character of the third value; not changing the second value associated with the second item; not changing the third value associated with the third item; assigning the first midvalue to the first item that determines a fourth rank, wherein the fourth rank is between the second rank and the third rank; and automatically moving the first item between the second item and the third item on the user interface based on the fourth rank being between the second rank and the third rank.” Therefore this claims are non-obvious combination of the limitations.
Response to Arguments
As to the remark, Applicant asserted that
Claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended may be based on or involve a mathematical concept, the claims themselves do not recite any mathematical concept. This is because the claims utilize a unique midrank updating technique to efficiently re-rank an item in a database and minimize database calls. Even if claims 1, 8, and 15 previously recited an abstract idea (which Applicant does not conceded), claims 1, 8, and 15 as amended include at least the above additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. This is because they show an improvement to the function of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Moreover, claims 1, 8, and 15 parallel claim 1 of Example 37 from the examples provided by the Office in the 2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42 is informative. (Available at Example 37 describes a method of organizing icons in a display, specifically arranging the icons based on an amount of usage, determined by a processor over a period of time. Id, pp. 1-2. Claim 1 of Example 37, although reciting the abstract idea of a mental process, integrates the mental process into a practical application because the claim includes a "combination of additional elements ... [that] recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface." Id, pp. 2-3. Similarly, claims 1, 8, and 15 herein recite a specific manner of "automatically moving the first item between the second item and the third item on the user interface based on a comparison of the first rank, second rank, and third rank," which provides a specific improvement over prior user interface systems by using string values for the ranks to "re-rank[] items [] in a data set [], without having to renumber or re-index every intervening rank value." Specification, ¶ [0012]. In addition, the independent claims recite additional features that recite an inventive concept, which amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. An inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.
Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s remark for the following reasons:
With respect to (a) Examiner would like to point out to applicant that Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as amended still covers performance of the limitation in the mind and hence falls under bucket of metal process. Steps of detecting re ranking can be reasonably perform in human mind and hence falls under bucket of metal process. Steps of comprises calculating a fourth value comprised of a fourth plurality of characters different from the first value, the second value, and the third value, the fourth value determines a midrank between the second rank and the third ranks, and the calculating is performed by: calculating a first midvalue based on a comparison of a first character of the second value and a first character of the third value; not changing the second value associated with the second item; not changing the third value associated with the third item; assigning the first midvalue to the first item that determines a fourth rank, wherein the fourth rank is between the second rank and the third rank; also directed toward an abstract idea bucket of metathetical concepts. Here, the additional elements of the interface, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because they are instructions to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
With respect to (b) Examiner would like to point out that claim 1 of Example 37 from the examples provided by the Office in the 2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42 is eligible because it provide improved user interface of electronic devices. Current claims focus on re ranking of items, more like general indexing of data without any improvement to user interface. For at least that reason claims does not appears significantly more than the abstract ideas.
All other applicant’s arguments are moot in view of rejection being withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571)-272-0734. 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.
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699