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 .
Claims 1 – 8 and 16 – 19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments in the 20 February 2026 request for continued examination:
While the Applicants disagree that the subject matter of former claim 1 is solely a mental process or a human activity the Applicants thank the Examiner for pointing out how claim 1 may be amended to overcome the §101 rejections. In particular the Examiner suggested to clarify "the claim language to better clarify the configuration in which the data is stored that allows it, or improves the manner in which it is, to be displayed in a fractal grid may be sufficient in overcoming the rejection." By so configuring the electronic storage as a two sided fractal grid the claims allow the improvement of allowing the grid to be used by a student in talking "classroom notes, and/or instructions" (Specification paragraphs [0066], [0068]) thus providing a particular solution to a problem left unaddressed by the prior art. In addition, with the addition of dependent claim 19 a student may be able to visually see the data change within the cell from one set of data to another as if the user was "flipping an index card" or using a "flashcard" (Specification paragraph [0071]). These improvements were not possible prior to the Applicants discovery. Claim 1 sets forth an "improvement in [fractal grid] technology or [the fractal grid] field" and covers a particular solution [i.e., the two sided fractal grid] to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome (see ANALYSIS above). Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims are patent eligible under §101.
King does not disclose or suggest the subject matter of claim 1, in particular, "an electronic processor retrieving executable instructions to access and retrieve configured data that corresponds to a specified level of the multi-level fractal grid from the electronic storage device configured as a two-sided fractal grid, wherein the specified level comprises first and second sides, where the first and second sides each comprise a same number of side cells, and where data within one or more side cells of the first side is the same or different than data from data within one or more side cells of the second side". Applicants note that the FOA refers the Applicants to paragraphs of King that describe cells in two different levels-a second and third level---(FOA pages 19-22) whereas claim 1 is directed at cells of a single, specified level. Because King does not disclose each and every feature of claim 1 it cannot anticipate claim 1 and its' dependent claims 2 to 8 and 16 to 19 based on §102. Applicants request withdrawal of the rejections and allowance of claims 1 to 8 and 16 to 19.
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
With respect to applicant’s argument A, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See updated 35 USC 101 analysis below. While the amendments disclose details of the structure of the stored multi-level fractal grid, the claim is still merely directed to accessing and retrieving of data in the grid and displaying thereof at a specified level. A user is capable of specifying a desired level and accessing of data. The claims are not directed to the creation of the fractal grid or the manner in which the grid is generated, stored and associated with the content in each cell in each level, but merely directed to accessing stored data and display thereof. Similarly, the added claims merely disclose the relationship of data within the cells, and the adding of image or video pixels to displayed data. Selection of image or video pixels is an abstract process, and the display of video or image pixels in the process of displaying a grid is the mere use of generic computing components to implement the abstract idea of accessing and retrieving of data to be displayed.
With respect to applicant’s argument B, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. King describes cells both at multiple levels as well as a specified level. King further discloses the use of a slider to move between levels to zoom in and out of the fractal grid, similar to Applicant’s disclosure of different levels of the multi-level grid. Further, with regards to Applicant’s arguments for claim 19 in the 101 argument, it appears Applicant means for the sides of the grid to possibly be directed to a sort of back and front of a flash or index card such as in [0071] of Applicant’s specification. However, the current claim language still can be interpreted using broadest reasonable interpretation for the sides of the grid to be the cells along the vertical and horizontal axis, such as the 3 vertical and 3 horizontal cells along the border of a 3x3 (9 cell) grid. The specification is non-limiting to the interpretation for the sides to be that similar to an index or flash card. Further, the claims are silent as to how the data is stored/associated with each side should that interpretation be amended within the claim, so it is unclear if the disclosure of the sides are at the storage level representation/association, or at the display level execution. Similar to King’s disclosure of clicking on a cell to access a dialog box of further information in [0055], should the content of the dialog box be considered a side of the cell, or if the animation of the cell flipping over to display another side. Clarification of such structure and the connection to the storage of the grid content beyond mere claiming of animation may be sufficient in overcoming the disclosure of King and help move prosecution forward.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s claim 1, as amended, recites that specified level is “configured as a two-sided fractal grid, wherein the specified level comprises first and second sides, where the first and second sides each comprise a same number of side sells”. However, Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection referred to the disclosure of [0066] of Applicant’s specification directed to examples of the sides of the cells representing different sides of a card, and further [0071] of flipping of a flash card or index card. However, such interpretations are non-limiting, and broadest reasonable interpretation includes the claimed sides of the cells on each level to be the horizontal axis and vertical axis of a grid having the same number of cells, such as a 1x1, 3x3 or 9x9 grid rather than each cell within the grid having a front and back side representation. Further, arguments with regards to new claim 19 for adding of one or more image or video pixels to allow for a visual representation of the flipping of an index or flash card are non-limiting as the claim itself is merely directed to the adding of one or more image or video pixels and does not include the visual change of the cell as if the user was triggering a flipping of an index or flash card.
Further clarification of the “sides” of the cells in claim 1, as well as other elements such as that intended for claim 19 to represent the change of data within the cell may help in potentially overcoming the prior art of record.
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 – 8 and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For claims 1 – 8 and 16 – 19, the claim(s) recite(s) accessing and retrieving configured data that corresponds to the specified level of the multi-level fractal grid, which is a concept that may be performed in the human mind such as a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because limitations directed to data configured as a two-sided fractal grid, wherein the specified level comprises first and second sides, where the first and second sides each comprise a same number of side cells, and where data within one or more side cells of the first side is the same or different than data from data within one or more side cells of the second side are merely adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g), as it accounts for mere description of the data structure being accessed and retrieved.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as an electronic storage device, display, network or client device are mere generic computer components being generally linked to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 2 recites generating an outer boundary of the specified level of the multi-level fractal grid. Identification/conceptualization of a boundary is a mental process and implementing the boundary on the grid being displayed as well as disclosure of the electronic processor is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 3 recites enhancing or emphasizing the outer boundary. Identification or conceptualization of a boundary and its further enhancement is a mental process and implementing the enhancement or emphasis of the boundary on the grid being displayed as well as disclosure of the electronic processor is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 recites computing length and width of an area which is a mathematical concept such as performing a calculation. Further, performing of such calculation could be reasonable performed within the human mind. The additional element of displaying the area within an outer boundary of the multi-level fractal grid as well as disclosure of the electronic processor is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5 recites dividing the area into portions to accommodate a number of cells. Being able to determine portions of a grid comprising a number of cells is a mental process. Further, division based on a number utilizes mathematical calculation that amounts to a mathematical concept. Additional elements such as the electronic processor is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 recites enhancing or emphasizing horizontal and vertical lines of a central cell. Identification or conceptualization of a cell’s boundaries and its further enhancement is a mental process and implementing the enhancement or emphasis of the boundary on the grid being displayed as well as disclosure of the electronic processor is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 7 recites enhancing or emphasizing horizontal and vertical boundary lines separating the cells. Identification or conceptualization of cell boundaries for a grid and further enhancement thereof is a mental process and implementing the enhancement or emphasis of the boundaries on the grid being displayed as well as disclosure of the electronic processor is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 8 recites adding a color to one or more cells that are separated by the boundary lines. Identification or conceptualization of colors and highlights of cells in a grid is a mental process. The details of the colors remaining associated with a respective cell as it is displayed at different levels is adding insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further disclosure of the electronic processor and display of the grid is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 16 recites associating different data with cells, which is a mental process. Disclosure of the electronic processor is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 17 and 18 are directed to insignificant extra solution activity with regards to data being the same or different within the structure, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 20 recites adding one or more image or video pixels to the displayed data. Association of image or video media with the data is a mental process. Adding image or video pixels to a display is mere use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 and 11 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0019348 issued to King (hereinafter referred to as King).
As to claim 1, King discloses a method for retrieving a plurality of data stored and configured in an electronic storage device as cells in a specified level of a multi-level fractal grid (electronic device, see King: Para. 0085 – 0090, and using a slider to specify a level, see King: Para. 0052 – 0054) comprising:
an electronic processor retrieving executable instructions (see King: Para. 0085 – 0090) for
accessing and retrieving configured data that corresponds to the specified level of the multi-level fractal grid from the electronic storage device (a user may click or manipulate a cell to display a lower level of the fractal grid hierarchy or may expand a cell, see King: Para. 0066 – 0071, 0072 – 0075 and 0076 – 0079, and Another aspect is that only a portion of content of an information node need be displayed within a cell. The cell, being a user graphical control, may be manipulated to display more of the information node's content. For example, a cell may comprise a scrollable display with scroll bars that may be manipulated to scroll the display of an information node. In another example, the cell may be clicked to invoke a dialogue box to view further information about a node, or even to enter data for an information node, see King: Para. 0055, and in response to clicking cell, the next level is displayed within grid, see King: Para. 0071, such user input is access and retrieving the configured data to the specified level) configured as a two-sided fractal grid, wherein the specified level comprises first and second sides, where the first and second sides each comprise a same number of side cells (Each cell at the previous level is divided or organized according to the fractal pattern. The term fractal refers to this characteristic of a fractal grid hierarchy and a level is formed by dividing a cell in the previous level into a nine cell grid. This pattern is repeated for successive levels., see King: Para. 0022 – 0023, and each level has a length and width of cells in the grid for the level, such as 3 x 3 for a second level, and 9 x 9 grid for a third level, see King: Para. 0072 – 0075, a nine cell grid (3x3) has 2 sides of 3 cells each such as the vertical and horizontal axis of the grid each having 3 cells to form the 8 border cells and 9th center cell, similar with a 9x9 grid having a vertical side of 9 cells and a horizontal side of 9 cells), and where data within one or more side cells of the first side is the same or different than data from data within one or more side cells of the second side (the cells comprise content and are linked to other nodes at the adjacent level, see King: Para. 0034 – 0036, the content would either be the same or different), and
displaying the data that corresponds to the specified level on a display associated with a network or client device (after the peripheral cell is dragged to the center cell and expanded, nodes in the second level of the vertical hierarchy that are children of the expanded node are now displayed in peripheral cells, see King: Para. 0076 – 0079).
As to claim 2, King discloses the method as in claim 1 further comprising the electronic processor further configured to complete executable instructions for generating an outer boundary of a specified level of the multi-level fractal grid (after the peripheral cell is dragged to the center cell and expanded, nodes in the second level of the vertical hierarchy that are children of the expanded node are now displayed in peripheral cells, see King: Para. 0076 – 0079, new peripheral cells are an outer boundary, see also examples of generating outer boundary/peripheral cells for each level, King: Para. 0028, 0037, 0040 – 0044, 0071, 0081 and 0088, further, each cell is demarcated by a border and may have different colors, see King: Para. 0026 and 0081, see also Each level of a fractal grid hierarchy displays one or more cells. For each level after the first level, the level comprises a grid formed according to the same fractal pattern applied to the previous level. In an embodiment, each cell from the previous level is divided and/or organized according to a fractal pattern. Each cell at the previous level is divided or organized according to the fractal pattern. The term fractal refers to this characteristic of a fractal grid hierarchy and a level is formed by dividing a cell in the previous level into a nine cell grid. This pattern is repeated for successive levels., see King: Para. 0022 – 0023).
As to claim 3, King discloses the method as in claim 2 further comprising the electronic processor further configured to complete executable instructions for enhancing or emphasizing the outer boundary (peripheral cells with cell borders that may be different colors, see King: Para. 0022 – 0023 and 0026).
As to claim 4, King discloses the method as in claim 1 further comprising the electronic processor further configured to complete executable instructions for computing a length and width of an area to be displayed within an outer boundary of the specified level of the multi-level fractal grid (each level has a length and width of cells in the grid for the level, such as 3 x 3 for a second level, and 9 x 9 grid for a third level, see King: Para. 0072 – 0075).
As to claim 5, King discloses the method as in claim 4 further comprising, the electronic processor further configured to complete executable instructions for the specified level, dividing the area into portions to accommodate a number of cells that correspond to the specified level (each level has a number of cells such a 9 x 9 grid for the third level comprising of each cell of the 3 x 3 grid of the second level and those second level’s cells’ peripheral node cells thereof, see King: Para. 0072 – 0075, see also 0026 – 0033, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, etc.).
As to claim 6, King discloses the method as in claim 5 further comprising the electronic processor further configured to complete executable instructions for enhancing or emphasizing horizontal and vertical lines of a central cell of the number of cells that correspond to the specified level (see border lines of the second and third level cells, including darker borders to demarcate the second level cell’s clusters in the third level display, King: Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, see also Para. 0026 – 0033).
As to claim 7, King discloses the method as in claim 5 further comprising the electronic processor further configured to complete executable instructions for enhancing or emphasizing one or more horizontal and vertical boundary lines separating the number of cells of the specified level (using borders and of different colors to outline cells and levels, see King: Para. 0026 and 0081, see also Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
As to claim 8, King discloses the method as in claim 7 further comprising the electronic processor further configured to complete executable instructions for adding a color to one or more of the cells that are separated by the boundary lines, wherein each color remains associated with a respective cell separated by the boundary lines as the cell is displayed in different levels of the multi-level fractal grid (using borders and of different colors to outline cells and levels, see King: Para. 0026 and 0081, see also Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
As to claim 16, King discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the electronic processor is further configured to execute instructions for associating different data with each and every side cell that is a part of the second side (in a vertical hierarchy, the content of the cells at a level may comprise different categories, see King: Para. 0034 - 0044).
As to claim 17, King discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the data within one or more side cells of the first side is the same as data within one or more side cells of the second side (cells in an expanded level of the vertical hierarchy comprise content of the same category in each area/portion of the grid, see King: Para. 0034 – 0044).
As to claim 18, King discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the data within one or more side cells of the first side differs from data within one or more side cells of the second side (in a vertical hierarchy, the content of the cells at a level may comprise different categories, see King: Para. 0034 - 0044).
As to claim 19, King discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the electronic processor is further configured to execute instructions for adding one or more image or video pixels to the displayed data (the cell content includes text, graphics and/or audio/visual data, see King: Para. 0045 – 0046, graphics and audio visual data is image or video pixels within the cells).
Additional References
US 2011/0145753 A1 – issued to Prakash: discloses a multi-level fractal user interface display of content cards and the creation of a rolodex style index card that may be flipped to see an image of a contact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK E HERSHLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164