DETAILED ACTION
Claims 111 – 122 and 125 - 132, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
Claims 1 – 110 and 123 - 124 were previously cancelled.
No claims are currently amended.
No claims are added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner Interview Request
Examiner requests an interview with Applicant. Examiner intended to schedule an interview with applicant, but a phone number is not listed for applicant. Form PTO/SB/439 has not been filed to permit internet communication along with an email address.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that their clarifying amendments further aligns claims with disclosure (remarks, page 4).
Examiner disagrees, and notes that applicant has failed to file an amended set of claims.
Applicant argues that “the examiner’s rejection conflates physical energy with disclosed computational energy,” (remarks, page 1).
Examiner notes applicant’s disclosure that “the specification consistently uses energy as a computational abstraction representing relative operational cost and system impact,” (remarks, page 1). Accordingly, applicant’s disclosure has necessitated a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Applicant argues that “the specification describes observable mechanisms for quantifying operational cost,” (remarks, page 2).
Examiner disagrees. Operations and data transitions are not computed in a measurable amount of energy.
Applicant argues that “written description does not require a fixed formula or unit,” (remarks, page 3).
Examiner disagrees. Applicant claims “quantifying an amount of energy that each element possesses as an operational cost…” It is unclear how the energy is quantified.
Applicant argues that “functional claim language is supported by disclosed architecture,” (remarks, page 3).
Examiner disagrees. Applicant has failed to show how the claimed limitations of “quantifying an amount of energy…” and “producing a personalization” are supported by disclosed architecture.
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.
Claim 111 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and/or math without significantly more.
As to claim 111, the claim recites the mental processes of categorizing data from a plurality of sources of a system into one of a plurality of spatial dimensions (A person can mentally categorize data), quantifying an amount of energy that each data element possesses as an operational cost (A person can mentally quantify data, the claim fails to specify how to quantify), and produce a personalization in a computing system (A person can mentally personalize data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually done to the data in any way, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 111 – 122 and 125 - 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant states in the specification:
[0031] 4th Dimension + Beyond: is the computational function which serves experiences based upon relativity in contrast to predefined database relationships as described in the 1st dimension. The function of the 4th spatial dimension as defined in physics is executed through the properties of potential energy. Observation of potential energy can be measured through an establishment of a numerical hierarchy used to structure data elements OD-3D. Activity dimensions 2-D and 3-D provide an aggregate of customer activities in comparison to measurable goals and serves information to 4-dimensional data tables to enable real-time feedback loops. Data elements contained in the 4th dimension include various unstructured, semi-structured and structured information such as: customer ID photo, customer review, % of personalized products purchased, system generated qualitative personalization experience, etc. The 4th dimension serves as an architecturally embedded, machine-learning feedback loop that uses information collected by data warehouse to enable the generation and transmission of personalized experiences autonomously.
There is no specific example of how energy is quantified. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.”Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
See MPEP § 2163, subsection I.A and MPEP § 2163, subsection II.A.3(a) for further discussion of rebutting the presumption of adequate written description for originally presented claims.
In this instance, applicant does not discuss how “quantify an amount of energy that each data element possesses as an operational cost to further process each data element.” Further, if it would be routine in the art to quantify energy, it might make the system obvious as a whole.
Conclusion/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached on 571-272-3645. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 March 20, 2026