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 .
Claims 1-4 are pending and have been examined.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 4 are directed to a system or method, is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 and 3 are directed to a tool comprising high value information, where the specification teaches tool can be a method, design principles, visual presentation or report (para. [0020]), which may not be one of the statutory categories. (Step 1: NO). See the section below for data per se. For compact prosecution, the claims are examined below to determine if they are abstract.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 and method Claim 2 as the claims that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A tool comprising high value information in a visual production.
Claim 2 recites the limitations of:
A data collection method whereby high value information is collected and distilled to convey parameters in the least number of words.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. The claims recite elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation that can be concepts performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper. Giving Claim 1 it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, the tool can be various things including printed matter. A piece of paper can be a tool that a person can write high value information on. In Claim 2 a person can collect information and distill the information to a few words, such as listening to someone and writing down key words or phrases. Further, using a generic computer to implement a judicial exception has been shown to be abstract (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 and 2 are also abstract. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In as much as the claims are using the information for communication between a health care provider and a patient or for teachings to a health care provider, the claims are also abstract as managing interactions or relationships between people. Claim 1 could be providing information to a care giver about a patient, using the visual presentation. Claim 2 could be a care giver listening to a patient and writing down key words. Therefore, the claims are also abstract under certain methods of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: tool (Claim 1). The tool is a generic tool recited at a high level of generality and could be just printed material (e.g., paper, see para. [0038] of the specification. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 2 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as collected (receiving) and to convey (transmitting) are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1 and 2 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 3 and 4 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 2 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 3 and 4 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-4 are not patent-eligible.
Data per se
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites a tool, as high value information in a visual production, which is data per se. There is no structure claimed and “visual production” is not taught in the disclosure. Data per se represent data structure without being connected to a physical or tangible form and does not fit into any of the four statutory classes (process, apparatus, article of manufacture and composition of matter). Therefore, the claims are not reciting a statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101. (MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-6]). C
Claim 3 is rejected as it depends from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1-4 are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
Claim 1 recites a tool, where the tool has no structure. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to mean anything capable of presenting information, including a piece of paper.
Claim 1 recites “visual production” where it is indefinite as to exactly what this is. For examination purposes this is interpreted to mean visual display of information.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 recite “high value information” where “high” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to mean some amount of value.
Claim 2 recites “least number of words” which is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes this is interpreted to mean a number of words less than the collected value.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is interpreted to mean at least one of the limitations claimed is applied against the design elements (e.g., design element comprising color coding, line sizing, etc.
Claim 4 recites “comprises specific training” where it is indefinite as to what the specific training comprises. That is, there is no standard or basis for specific training. For examination purposes, the word “specific” is ignored.
Claim 4 recites “fewest number of words” which is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to mean a reduction of some amount in the number of words.
Claims 3 and 4 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent No. US 6070175 to Mezei.
Regarding claim 1
A tool comprising high value information in a visual production.
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of high value information in a visual production. See MPEP 2111.05]
Mezei teaches:
FrameMaker as a tool for visual presentation…
“The present invention improves upon the ability of FrameMaker.RTM. to interface with database systems by providing a graphical user interface and by allowing a specially formatted FrameMaker.RTM. document to be used for both data entry and reporting. This improvement to FrameMaker.RTM. is in the form of a C language program called DBForms. This program may be found in the microfiche appendix to the present invention.” (col. 6, lines 21-28)
Where the tool provides publishing (high value information)…
“The present invention is useful for adding functionality to, and significantly simplifying the use of, FrameMaker.RTM. and providing the capability to integrate the results of the present invention into other software applications. The present invention provides easy-to-use toolbars of visual keyboard shortcuts, an intuitive mechanism for collaborating on preparing a document, comprehensive tools for creating data driven graphics, computer-to-computer utilities, graphics and table tools, document reports, filters, and a dynamic interface to database systems for publishing and two-way forms-based access.” (col. 3, lines 61-67 to col. 4, lines 1-4)
Need for publishing and reporting by assignee (Director the National Security Agency)…
“The present version of FrameMaker.RTM. does not have the specialized functionality required by the assignee of the present invention in the areas of database forms, database publishing, graphics, collaborative preparation (i.e., more than one user working on the same document), productivity (i.e., making existing and new functions faster to use), computer to computer transfers, tables, reporting, and filters. The present invention is a method embodied in a series of C language programs that enhances FrameMaker.RTM. in all of these areas so that a user has access to more functionality while using FrameMaker.RTM. and may be more productive as well.” (col. 2, lines 3-14) Inherent with National Security Agency and publishing and reporting is high value information.
Mezei teaches information. They do not explicitly teach high value information. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that high value information could be various things, and that reports would include high value information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s filing to modify the reference with the knowledge available to such an artisan that various information could be presented including high value information. This would have been known work in the field of endeavor prompting variations of it in the same field based on use of presenting relevant information and would provide predictable results.
Regarding claim 3
The system of Claim 1 above, wherein said tool comprises specific design elements such as color coding, line sizing, line breaking, boxing, font sizes, font selections, typeface, information graphical location, and other common or uncommon formatting as such selected to codify information.
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of specific design elements such as color coding, line sizing, line breaking, boxing, font sizes, font selections, typeface, information graphical location, and other common or uncommon formatting as such selected to codify information.]
Mezei teaches:
Various formatting capabilities such as color, font, size…
“ChartIt includes options for X-axis and Y-axis gridlines, data labels, markers, smoothing lines, drop lines, size, color, character format, angle of X-axis values, and the format of the axes. A user may specify X-axis and Y-axis gridlines which appear as background grid of equally spaced vertical and horizontal lines (not in the pie chart). The user may also specify a data label which appears as a numeric value at a particular data point in the chart. A user may also specify a marker which appears as a symbol drawn at a data point (mandatory for a scatter chart). A user may also specify that lines be smoothed for a line chart and an area chart. A smoothed line consists of a series of smooth curves instead of a series of angular lines. A user may also specify a drop line which appears as a line drawn from a data point to an axis for a line chart, an area chart, and a scatter chart. A user may also specify the height, width, color, and format in a chart created using Chartlt. The user may specify the font, size, angle, and weight for the titles and labels used in a chart. A user may also specify that the tick-mark labels along the X-axis may be displayed at 0, 30, 45, 60, and 90 degrees. A user may also specify the minimum and maximum values displayed for the value axis (X or Y depending on the type of chart) and increment of tick-mark labels.” (col. 12, lines 36-58)
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2020/0183989 to Krogh et al.
Regarding claim 2
A data collection method whereby high value information is collected and distilled to convey parameters in the least number of words.
[No Patentable Weight is given to intended use language of “to convey parameters…” as parameters are never conveyed. See MPEP 2111.02]
Krogh et al. teaches:
NPL model and fewer terms, therefore, distill…
“In some embodiments, the one or more text descriptions are processed through a NLP model. For example, the one or more text descriptions may describe a photograph without any semantic or other context (e.g., the context of the current news). Accordingly, when the text descriptions are run through a NLP model, additional and/or fewer terms corresponding to context can be added and/or removed from the text descriptions. In some embodiments, these additional and/or fewer terms added/subtracted from the one or more text descriptions are one or more derived “interest contexts.”…” {0024]
Krogh et al. teaches information. They do not explicitly teach high value information. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that high value information could be various things, and that reports would include high value information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s filing to modify the reference with the knowledge available to such an artisan that various information could be presented including high value information. This would have been known work in the field of endeavor prompting variations of it in the same field based on use of presenting relevant information and would provide predictable results.
Regarding claim 4
The system of Claim 2 above, wherein said data collection method comprises specific training that enables distillation and presentation of high value information in the fewest number of words.
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of presentation of high value information in the fewest number of words.]
Krogh et al. teaches:
Example of training data and fewer text (words)…
“In some embodiments, the one or more text descriptions are processed through a NLP model. For example, the one or more text descriptions may describe a photograph without any semantic or other context (e.g., the context of the current news). Accordingly, when the text descriptions are run through a NLP model, additional and/or fewer terms corresponding to context can be added and/or removed from the text descriptions. In some embodiments, these additional and/or fewer terms added/subtracted from the one or more text descriptions are one or more derived “interest contexts.” An interest context thus provides context or meaning to text descriptions. For example, referring to the example above, the text description of “image of person wearing green top hat,” can be modified to be “green top hat, public figure Y, style of music B,” (an interest context). The NLP model thus provides additional context (e.g., semantic context) to the text descriptions. In this example, training data may indicate that a particular public figure music celebrity, which plays music style B (e.g., as indicated in a corpus of various news sources) always wears the green top hat. Accordingly, in this way, additional user interest insight can be extracted from text descriptions to allow for a robust mechanism to determine user interest. This is in contrast to typical functionality that simply classifies photographs and responsively performs actions, such as provide user interfaces. As is illustrated in the example above, interest contexts can include additional characters or words than text descriptions to provide more context. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the interest contexts summarize or categorize each text description into one or fewer character sequences than the text description itself (e.g., text description=John, standing on boat, wearing sports team Y shirt; interest context=outdoors). Accordingly, the interest context in various embodiments includes fewer characters or word sequences than the text descriptions.” [0024]
Example of display (presentation) of interest context (fewer text)…
“The interest classifier 108 allows a system to be able to render web or app pages. For example, if the predefined category of “football team X” was selected as the output of a mapping of the interest context, an online marketplace (e.g., the central server(s) 108) may cause a display to the user device(s) 102 of several product listings on a web page (e.g., football team X cap, football team X sweater, football team X mug, etc.).” [0038]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684