DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. Claims 1-6 fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claim 11 for the same abstract features, is below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 11 …managing collaboration and information in the field of space exploration and technology development comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
618
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
121
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim limitations above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite managing collaboration information for project development and connecting participants and resources in the space industry. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1 and 11 include the following additional elements:
A system comprising: a server having a processor that is communicatively coupled to a memory, a storage, and a network interface, the network interface communicatively coupled to a network, and the server configured to:
a first client device communicatively coupled to the server through the network;
identify a data object within the storage;
a second client device communicatively coupled to the server through the network;
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Additionally, receiving first and second messages (data) and updating the game data within the storage amounts to data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, thus does not add any meaningful limitations, and since receiving, storing and transmitting data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer, these additional elements are deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The legal precedent in Electric Power Group and Ultramercial cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, and requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, are all insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, it is determined that they are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as well. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Ultramercial, Versata, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receipt and transmission of information over a computer network, and updating an activity log are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities) and also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 comprise the following additional elements: An interface and a third client device. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-20 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-16 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph for the following reasoning:
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 11:
[IT core] for managing…;
[a PMH integration module] for integrating…
[a Progress Area module] for managing project development social interaction…
…and all of the various [modules] recited in functions iv – xi (claim 1) and c-j (claim 11).
Since the claim limitation(s) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification in [0120] discloses that an IT core comprises “data storage means, processing means, and communication means” and the various modules in [0047] discloses “module 214 can identify a body of interest created in a classification system 300.” However, the Specification for this application does not appear to link any sufficient corresponding specific structure to any of the various “modules” or “IT core” placeholder terms underlined above. All the dependent claims are also interpreted for the same reasons above to which they depend on their respective independent claims.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the claim elements considered as means plus function limitations that that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above fail to provide sufficient written description to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions. There is no recitation in the specification that clearly identifies and links the corresponding structure required to perform the claimed functions. According to MPEP 2181(II)(B), to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333. Here, Applicant’s claimed system including modules appear to perform specific functions that require a corresponding structure. However, Applicant’s specification fails to sufficiently disclose the structure that corresponds to the modules and corresponding algorithm required to transform the corresponding structure into the special purpose computer that implements the claimed function.
Since the corresponding structure is not clearly identified, the claims are indefinite.
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links r associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Applicant is required to: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite since the means-plus-function limitations are not supported by any corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
Claims 1-16 recite various “modules” and “IT core” recited in view of 112(f) interpretation above, in which these generic place holder terms are coupled with functional language reciting a generic placeholder lacking sufficient structure to achieve the claimed function, which render them indefinite because the means-plus limitations are not supported by any corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. There is essentially no recitation in the specification that clearly identifies the corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions.
Relevant Prior Art
Prior art listed below is pertinent and relevant to the claimed invention. The prior art does not appear to anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations claimed in this application for the independent claims of this application, as a whole.
US 20240202772 Information Monitoring System and Method discloses monitoring a group of attendees within a space to determine if a common interest exists amongst the group of attendees may include: obtaining electronic identification data for one or more of the group of attendees. Monitoring a group of attendees within a space to determine if a common interest exists amongst the group of attendees may include: associating one or more of the group of attendees with a social media account, thus defining one or more associated media accounts; and monitoring activity on the one or more associated media accounts. The space may be a physical space. The physical space may be associated with one or more of: sporting events; cultural festivals; religious pilgrimages; political events; social events; technology conferences; and pop culture conventions. Directing content concerning the common interest to the space may include: directing content concerning the common interest to content rendering devices within the physical space.
US 20230050219 Philanthropic action method and system discloses social media platform is provided. The social media platform implements free and open digital activism, social action, societal understanding and the social issue conversation. Powered by information and data from various sources, as well as user generated content and internal research approaches, platform provides the user with an environment built on a broad set of cloud-based products centered around revolutionizing and redefining social action. Platform allows consumers, customers, and stakeholders to access the tools necessary for exponentially enhancing social action approaches both individually and in groups, for tracking, managing, and organizing all social impact, social capital, and philanthropic opportunities, for engaging in multiple forms of social action, empathy building, and truth sharing, and for keeping up with the rising demand for social action involvement, societal understanding, and social justice advocacy.
US 20230080344 discloses a system for displaying user generated content files to a group of users is provided. The system divides the users into groups based on mental health conditions and then selectively shows the user generated content to the groups based on matching tags on the user generated content. A comorbidity cross-reference is used to cross-reference tangentially related content to users not directly interested.
US 20160255082 discloses a system, methods, platform, social network, database, search engine & device for posting or presenting contents to contextual users of network. In an embodiment server identifies, updates and stores each user specific contextual or matched following users, followers, viewers, category or activity specific users and connections from users of network based on user data and identified, applied & executed rules via rule based system.
"IEEE IC Big Data Governance and Metadata Management: Standards Roadmap," in IEEE IC Big Data Governance and Metadata Management: Standards Roadmap , vol., no., pp.1-62, 3 July 2020.
However, none of the prior art does appears to anticipate or render obvious the combination of limitations claimed in this application for the independent claims of this application, as a whole.
Conclusion
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights