DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the response filed on January 5, 2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended,
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The rejection of claims1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. Please see the Response to Arguments.
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. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R- 07.2022].Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-7 falls within statutory class of a machine, claims 8-14 falls within statutory category of an article of manufacturing and claims 15-20 falls within statutory category of a process. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
[one or more computer readable storage media;
one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least:]
receive a digital image of a physical polling board, wherein the physical polling board includes:
a canvas having a plurality of polling options arranged thereon; and physical response cards of group members attached to the canvas in proximity to the polling options; and
for at least a response card of the physical response cards :
execute at least one object detection algorithm to identify from the digital image a location of the response card on the canvas relative to the polling options arranged on the canvas;
identify a centroid for the response card and a centroid for each of the polling options based on the digital image;
calculate a distance between the centroid for the response card and the centroid for each of the polling options;
select, as a corresponding polling option for the response card, a most proximate polling option based on the distance between the centroid for the response card and the centroid for each of the polling options;
execute at least one optical character recognition algorithm to extract, from the digital image, identifying information from the response card that corresponds to a group member associated with the response card; and
log the corresponding polling option as a response in association with the group member to generate a historical record of the group member’s responses; and generate trend data for the group member based on the historical record of the group member’s responses.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor and storage. The object detection algorithm technique of using centroids for identification and distance calculation between two objects and optical character recognition algorithm, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. Claims 1, 8 and 15 uses the object detection algorithm technique and optical character recognition algorithm, as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus type structure at paragraphs 0092-0093: “ FIG. 15 , processing system 1502 may comprise a micro-processor and other circuitry that retrieves and executes software 1505 from storage system 1503. Processing system 1502 may be implemented within a single processing device but may also be distributed across multiple processing devices or sub-systems that cooperate in executing program instructions. Examples of processing system 1502 include general purpose central processing units, graphical processing units, application specific processors, and logic devices, as well as any other type of processing device, combinations, or variations thereof. Storage system 1503 may comprise any computer readable storage media readable by processing system 1502 and capable of storing software 1505.” And paragraph 0070: “the computing device may perform optical character recognition, an object detection algorithm, or the like, to detect an object, text, boundary, etc. of a polling card or response card.”
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2, 9 and 16 further limit the abstract idea that the centroid for the response card comprises one or more of: a middle of the response card, a location of a first letter of a word on the response card, a first word of a phrase on the response card, a middle of the word on the response card, and a point calculated based on a location of multiple points on the response card (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3, 10 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by identifying the group member associated with the response card by looking up an identity of the group member in a table having identities of group members stored in association with the identifying information on the physical response cards (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 11 and 18 further limit the abstract idea that each of the physical response cards comprises a graphical representation of a character and alphanumeric characters printed on each of the physical response cards indicative of a name of the character (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5, 12 and 19 further limit the abstract idea that for at least the response card of the physical response cards, execute one or more image correction algorithms to adjust for at least one of a perspective distortion, response card misalignment, and occlusion in the digital image (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6, 13 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by looking up the response card in a table based on the name of the character to identify the group member associated with the response card (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by generating a report comprising trend data for at least the group member associated with the response card (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea. The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The one or more image correction algorithms, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. Claims 5, 12 and 19 uses the one or more image correction algorithms, as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues that (1) “[t]he claims integrated the abstract idea into a practical application” And (2) “the claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea” (Remarks, pages 10-13).
In response to Applicant’s argument (1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The one or more computer readable media, the one or more processors of the computing apparatus, the object detection algorithm and the optical character recognition algorithm, is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data and generic object detection and optical character recognition algorithm performing generic object detection and optical character recognition functions. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/storing/transmitting. The recited one or more computer readable media, the one or more processors of the computing apparatus, the object detection algorithm and the optical character recognition algorithm, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the one or more computer readable media, the one or more processors of the computing apparatus, the object detection algorithm and the optical character recognition algorithm involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claims 1, 8 and 15 uses the one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus, as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. Claims 1, 8 and 15 uses the object detection algorithm technique of using centroids for identification and distance calculation between two objects and optical character recognition algorithm, as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 uses the one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus, as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. Claims 1, 8 and 15 uses the object detection algorithm technique of using centroids for identification and distance calculation between two objects and optical character recognition algorithm, as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. The newly added limitations uses the one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus to store historical record of the responses of the group members and to analyze/determine data to generate trend data based on the analysis. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the claimed method does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument (2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Executing all the operations (receiving/executing/identifying/calculating/selecting/logging/generating) by a processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic one or more computer readable media and the one or more processors of the computing apparatus type structure at paragraphs 0092-0093: “ FIG. 15 , processing system 1502 may comprise a micro-processor and other circuitry that retrieves and executes software 1505 from storage system 1503. Processing system 1502 may be implemented within a single processing device but may also be distributed across multiple processing devices or sub-systems that cooperate in executing program instructions. Examples of processing system 1502 include general purpose central processing units, graphical processing units, application specific processors, and logic devices, as well as any other type of processing device, combinations, or variations thereof. Storage system 1503 may comprise any computer readable storage media readable by processing system 1502 and capable of storing software 1505.” And paragraph 0070: “the computing device may perform optical character recognition, an object detection algorithm, or the like, to detect an object, text, boundary, etc. of a polling card or response card.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). Applicant's claims do not apply the additional elements in a manner beyond what has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional for computers and computing devices, the computer is merely used as a tool, there is no improvement to the field of computer technology. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. The rejection is maintained.
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 NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623