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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment dated 4/24/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
3. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims.
Applicant’s Response
4. In Applicant’s response dated 4/24/2026, applicant has amended the following:
a) Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15 and 19
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the following rejections previously set forth in Office Action dated 1/30/2026 are withdrawn:
a) 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections to claims 1-20
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 10 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite
“wherein the first threshold determines if the one or more first data items are legible on the display”
“assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item, wherein the smallest allowable first data item represents a minimum legible pixel height on the display” (emphasis added).
The terms “allowable” and “legible” in claim 1, 10 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “allowable” “legible” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Par. 31 and par. 40 describes “legible to the user” and the plain meaning of “legible” to one of ordinary skill is considered “clear enough to read”. Because the specification characterizes legibility as determined by the user and each user has varying vision abilities with respect to reading, it is unclear how the recited smallest allowable first data item represents the recited minimum legible pixel height, when only the user can determine the smallest allowable when based on whether the data item is “legible” enough to read. Therefore, there is no way to ascertain what is legible to a user unless the user is providing feedback to the system confirming what is legible. Thus, the unclear scope of the limitation makes the claims indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed towards methods (i.e., processes) for displaying items along a first axis and a second axis of a display device.
Therefore, claims 1-20 recite one of the enumerated statutory categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 1 recites A computer-implemented method for displaying items along a first axis and a second axis of a display device, wherein the first axis is comprised of at least a first section and a second section, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a plurality of first data objects from a data store;
receiving a size of the display device for displaying one or more first data items;
determining a number of the one or more first data items to be displayed in the first section;
determining a maximum first size for displaying the one or more first data items along the second axis of the display device such that the one or more first data items are visible on the display device without scrolling;
determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a first threshold, wherein the first threshold determines if the one or more first data items are legible on the display device;
in response to the determination that the maximum first size fails to exceed the first threshold, determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a second threshold, wherein the second threshold corresponds to a minimum pixel height for the one or more first data items to be visible on the display device;
in response to determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed the second threshold, determining an inverse of the maximum first size and assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item, wherein the smallest allowable first data item represents a minimum legible pixel height on the display device, and wherein the plurality of first data objects correspond to the smallest allowable first data item, such that the smallest allowable first data item represents more than one first data object; and
displaying the smallest allowable first data item on the display device such that the smallest allowable first data item is visible without scrolling along the second axis.
Claim 10 recites A computer-implemented method for displaying items along a first axis and a second axis of a display device, wherein the first axis is comprised of at least a first section and a second section, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a plurality of first data objects from a data store;
receiving a size of the display device for displaying one or more first data items;
determining a number of the one or more first data items to be displayed in the first section;
determining a maximum first size for displaying the one or more first data items along the second axis of the display device such that the one or more first data items are visible on the display device without scrolling;
determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a first threshold, wherein the first threshold determines if the one or more first data items are legible on the display device;
in response to the determination that the maximum first size fails to exceed the first threshold, determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a second threshold, wherein the second threshold corresponds to a minimum pixel height for the one or more first data items to be visible on the display device;
in response to determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed the second threshold, determining an inverse of the maximum first size and assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item, wherein the smallest allowable first data item represents a minimum legible pixel height on the display device, and wherein the plurality of first data objects correspond to the smallest allowable first data item, such that the smallest allowable first data item represents more than one first data object; and
displaying the smallest allowable first data item on the display device such that the smallest allowable first data item is visible without scrolling along the second axis.
Claim 19 recites A computer-implemented method for displaying items along a first axis and a second axis of a display device, wherein the first axis is comprised of at least a first section and a second section, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a plurality of first data objects from a data store;
receiving a size of the display device for displaying one or more first data items;
determining a number of the one or more first data items to be displayed in the first section;
determining a maximum first size for displaying the one or more first data items along the second axis of the display device such that the one or more first data items are visible on the display device without scrolling;
determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a first threshold, wherein the first threshold determines if the one or more first data items are legible on the display device;
in response to the determination that the maximum first size fails to exceed the first threshold, determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a second threshold, wherein the second threshold corresponds to a minimum pixel height for the one or more first data items to be visible on the display device;
in response to determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed the second threshold, determining an inverse of the maximum first size and assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item, wherein the smallest allowable first data item represents a minimum legible pixel height on the display device, and wherein the plurality of first data objects correspond to the smallest allowable first data item, such that the smallest allowable first data item represents more than one first data object; and
displaying the smallest allowable first data item on the display device such that the smallest allowable first data item is visible without scrolling along the second axis.
The bolded limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea, which includes a mental process because it recites concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Any limitations not identified above is part of the abstract idea and deemed “additional elements”, are underlined.
Step 2A- Prong 1
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. The independent claims recite methods for determining how to display items.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites determining a number of the one or more first data items to be displayed in the first section;
determining a maximum first size for displaying the one or more first data items along the second axis of the display device such that the one or more first data items are visible on the display device without scrolling;
determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a first threshold, wherein the first threshold determines if the one or more first data items are legible on the display device;
in response to the determination that the maximum first size fails to exceed the first threshold, determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a second threshold, wherein the second threshold corresponds to a minimum pixel height for the one or more first data items to be visible on the display device;
in response to determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed the second threshold, determining an inverse of the maximum first size and assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item, wherein the smallest allowable first data item represents a minimum legible pixel height on the display device, and wherein the plurality of first data objects correspond to the smallest allowable first data item, such that the smallest allowable first data item represents more than one first data object;
Independent claim 10 recites determining a number of the one or more first data items to be displayed in the first section;
determining a maximum first size for displaying the one or more first data items along the second axis of the display device such that the one or more first data items are visible on the display device without scrolling;
determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a first threshold, wherein the first threshold determines if the one or more first data items are legible on the display device;
in response to the determination that the maximum first size fails to exceed the first threshold, determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a second threshold, wherein the second threshold corresponds to a minimum pixel height for the one or more first data items to be visible on the display device;
in response to determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed the second threshold, determining an inverse of the maximum first size and assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item, wherein the smallest allowable first data item represents a minimum legible pixel height on the display device, and wherein the plurality of first data objects correspond to the smallest allowable first data item, such that the smallest allowable first data item represents more than one first data object;
Independent claim 19 recites determining a number of the one or more first data items to be displayed in the first section;
determining a maximum first size for displaying the one or more first data items along the second axis of the display device such that the one or more first data items are visible on the display device without scrolling;
determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a first threshold, wherein the first threshold determines if the one or more first data items are legible on the display device;
in response to the determination that the maximum first size fails to exceed the first threshold, determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed a second threshold, wherein the second threshold corresponds to a minimum pixel height for the one or more first data items to be visible on the display device;
in response to determining that the maximum first size fails to exceed the second threshold, determining an inverse of the maximum first size and assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item, wherein the smallest allowable first data item represents a minimum legible pixel height on the display device, and wherein the plurality of first data objects correspond to the smallest allowable first data item, such that the smallest allowable first data item represents more than one first data object;
These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, these limitations are grouped within the “mental process” grouping (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) of abstract ideas. (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(iii)). Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2
The independent claims recite the combination of additional elements of 1) computer-implemented 2) computer systems 3) receiving a plurality of first data objects from a data store; 4) receiving a size of the display device for displaying one or more first data items; 5) displaying the smallest allowable first data item on the display device such that the smallest allowable first data item is visible without scrolling along the second axis.
The independent claims merely use computer elements as tools to perform abstract ideas and generally link the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of the computer elements as tools to implement the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The 1) computer-implemented 2) computer systems are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component limitations to apply the exception using a general computer component or amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use cannot provide a practical application. Specifically, the computer elements may be any number of hardware architectures including processors, user devices, storage devices, servers that function to perform data storage and processing (see instant specification Figure 1, paras. 20-22)
The additional elements of 3) receiving a plurality of first data objects from a data store; 4) receiving a size of the display device for displaying first data items; are merely data gathering steps or well-known pre-solution of insignificant extra-solution activity. (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional element of 5) displaying the smallest allowable first data item on the display device such that the smallest allowable first data item is visible without scrolling along the second axis; is merely data outputting or well-known post-solution of insignificant extra-solution activity. (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As explained above, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional limitations are not indicative of materializing into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer elements such as 1) computer-implemented 2) computer systems to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Generic computer elements
recited as performing generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, or
conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
3) receiving a plurality of first data objects from a data store; 4) receiving a size of the display device for displaying first data items; 5) displaying the smallest allowable first data item on the display device such that the smallest allowable first data item is visible without scrolling along the second axis are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OJP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network and performing repetitive calculations); Bancorp Services V. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp's claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information). Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). See MPEP 2106.05(d) Here, the claim limitation of receiving data and displaying data based on a calculated formula is similar to the receiving data, displaying data, and performing calculations by hand or by merely thinking as stated above.
Therefore, the additional elements in the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Furthermore, there is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Remaining Claims
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
The dependent claims add additional features including those that merely serve
to further narrow the abstract idea above including: receiving user input or data or outputting data as insignificant extra solution activity (4,5,6,7,8,13,14,15,16,17), computer implemented (2-9,11-18,20), are recited at a high level in the claims and in the spec and only amount to using a computer to aid in the mental process, especially as they are well known in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(f) section (2)). Applicant's inventive concept is using the computer as a tool to help display items without the need to scroll or with reduced amount of scrolling (see spec [0016). So the improvement seems to improve the abstract idea (determining how to display items more efficiently) verses an improvement in a technology or technological process. The improvement cannot come from the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
1)Applicant asserts that claim 1, 10, and 19 as amended do not recite the abstract idea of a mental process. Applicant remarks that the human mind is not practically capable of "determining an inverse of the maximum first size [of a data item] and assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item" corresponding to "a minimum legible pixel height on display device for the one or more first data items to be visible on the display device" as recited in claim 1 as amended. The human mind is not practically capable of dynamically adjusting the display of a data object or item on a display device based on minimum legible pixel height of the display device. The process of rendering data items on the display of a device is firmly entrenched in the realm of technology and computing. (see Response; page 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the recited determining “an inverse of the maximum first size” is merely a value and the inverse of a value is merely reciprocating the value which is then compared to threshold values which can all be performed in the human mind. Examiner also notes that “assigning each of the plurality of first data objects to a smallest allowable first data item" is merely arranging data which can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper. Lastly, the “minimum legible pixel height” is merely a value that can be mentally evaluated. Therefore, dynamically arranging data based on comparing values can be practically performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, rendering of data items based on determining and comparing values that can be performed mentally is firmly entrenched in the realm of abstract ideas.
Furthermore, there is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
2)Applicant argues that claims 1, 10, and 19 are eligible for same reason that claim 1 in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) was found subject matter eligible. (see Response; page 12)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that there are no comparable limitations that can be performed mentally in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, there is no judicial exception for prong one of the second step analysis, therefore, the claim 1 is patent eligible. Examiner encourages Applicant to provide a comparable case that includes similar determination steps as the instant claims.
3)Applicant argues in the instant application, independent claim 1 is subject matter eligible because it recites a specific improvement (e.g., ensuring that items displayed on a display device are legible and visible) over conventional display methods, which results in an improved display mechanism for electronic devices. (see Response; page 13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the plain meaning of “legible and visible” to one of ordinary skill is considered easily detected and clear enough to read. Clearly, a user can determine if data is legible and visible in the mind. For example, a user may change enlarge the size of data when the data is not legible because increasing the size of data improves how legibility of data. So the alleged improvement (i.e., ensuring that items displayed on a display device are legible and visible) seems to improve the abstract idea (e.g., determining how to display items as legible and visible as determined by the user) rather than an improvement in a technology or technological process. The improvement cannot come from the abstract ideas. In other words, an improved display mechanism based solely on an abstract idea (i.e., displaying data that is legible and visible as determined in the mind of the user) does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
4)Applicant argues Like claim 1 in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L, independent claim 1 requires a specific manner by which the display of the limited information is triggered, namely in response to not exceeding a first threshold for legibility, and not exceeding a second threshold for visibility. Moreover, like claim 1 in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L, independent claim 1 requires that the display show a limited set of data, namely that the data displayed is visually restricted such that it can be viewed without scrolling the display. (see Response; page 13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained above, there is no judicial exception for prong one of the second step analysis of claim 1 in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L, therefore, the claim 1 is not comparable to the instant claims. Examiner encourages Applicant to provide a comparable case that includes similar determination steps as the instant claims.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/HENRY ORR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights