DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 12/19/2023 has been fully considered. Claims 1-14 and 21-26 have been examined. Claims 15-20 have been canceled. 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. Specification Content of Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: As an implementable way, the pre-configured work to be rendered may be a painting of a retarded child or other artist . Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP 608, If during the course of examination of a patent application, an examiner notes the use of language that could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality, he or she should object to the use of the language as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.3 which proscribes the presentation of papers which are lacking in decorum and courtesy. The inclusion of such proscribed language in a federal government publication would not be in the public interest. Also, the inclusion in application drawings of any depictions or caricatures that might reasonably be considered offensive to any group should be similarly objected to . 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 1-14 and 21-26 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims user the term “real time” but Examiner notes that since the claims involve communications between terminal and servers, a network or connection is needed, ignoring the inherent latency that exists in communications. 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 1-14 and 21-26 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the received rendering". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the rendered work". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "an external display terminal", making it indefinite if it is the same terminal as introduced in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the time stamps". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation " the renderable element identifiers ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the renderable element" and reintroduces “a renderable element”, making it indefinite which element is being referenced . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the server side ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 recites the limitation " the computer execution instructions ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the received rendering". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 recites the limitation "the rendered work". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 recites the limitation "the time stamps". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 recites the limitation "the device" , "the renderable element" and reintroduces “a renderable element”, making it indefinite which element is being referenced . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the intended metes and bounds of claims 1-14 and 21-26 is. Applicant has failed to establish the intended metes and bounds of these, and thus the claims are indefinite. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The term “ real time ” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, 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. This is not intended to be a complete list of such indefiniteness issues. 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. 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- 14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining and rendering information . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover receiving a description and rendering or drawing it in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components. Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a device” , or “display terminal” , nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a terminal ” language, the claim encompasses a user receiving a description of an image or person and drawing it as law enforcement sketchers have done in the past and how early fax machines worked . Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible. The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Shimizu ( 20150002435 ). Regarding claim s 1 and 21 , Shimizu teaches A method of pattern rendering, the method implemented at a server side and comprising: / An electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; the memory storing computer executable instructions; the processor executing the computer execution instructions stored in the memory to cause the processor to perform a method of pattern rendering comprising (abstract, par.38-43) : obtaining a pattern rendering instruction comprising a plurality of coordinate points to be rendered and painting attributes corresponding to the coordinate points to be rendered (par.47-53, 163-164, provide rendering instruction with coordinates and attributes, color, etc ) ; performing, according to the painting attributes in the pattern rendering instruction, rendering on respective coordinate points to be rendered in a predetermined work to be rendered, the painting attributes corresponding to the coordinate points to be rendered (par.42-46, rendering in each terminal) ; and in response to that a predetermined instruction is detected, sending the rendering to an external display terminal in real time so that the received rendering in real time is displayed at the external display terminal (par.47-50, simultaneously display in multiple terminals) . Regarding claim 10 , Shimizu teaches A method of pattern rendering, the method implemented at an external display terminal and comprising (abstract, par.38-43) : obtaining rendering, wherein the rendering is obtained by, after the server side obtains a pattern rendering instruction, rendering each coordinate point to be rendered in a predetermined work to be rendered according to painting attributes corresponding to the coordinate point to be rendered in the pattern rendering instruction (par.47-53, 163-164, provide rendering instruction with coordinates and attributes, color, etc , par.42-46, rendering in each terminal) ; and displaying the rendering in real time (par.47-50, simultaneously display in multiple terminals) . Regarding claim s 2 and 22 , Shimizu teaches wherein in response to that a predetermined instruction is detected, sending the re ndering to an external display terminal in real time so that the received re ndering in real time is displayed at the external display terminal comprises: in response to that a re ndering completion instruction is detected, sending the rendered work to the external display terminal so that the rendered work is displayed at the external display terminal (par.67-71) . Regarding claim s 3 and 23 , Shimizu teaches wherein the pattern rendering instruction of at least one pattern rendering instruction comprises a time stamp; and obtaining a pattern rendering instruction sent by a terminal device comprises: ranking respective pattern rendering instructions according to the time stamps to obtain a queue to be displayed; and obtaining pattern rendering instructions from the queue to be displayed in a chronological order (par.67-71) . Regarding claim s 4 and 24 , Shimizu teaches wherein the work to be rendered comprises at least one renderable element formed by the plurality of coordinate points to be rendered; and the pattern rendering instruction further comprises a renderable element identifier; and ranking respective pattern rendering instructions according to the time stamps to obtain a queue to be displayed comprises: grouping the pattern rendering instructions according to the renderable element identifiers; and for each renderable element, ranking a plurality of pattern rendering instructions corresponding to the renderable element according to the time stamps to obtain a queue to be displayed corresponding to the renderable element (par.67-71) . Regarding claim s 5 and 25 , Shimizu teaches wherein after obtaining pattern rendering instructions from the queue to be displayed in the chronological order, the method further comprises: detecting whether the queue to be displayed comprises an unprocessed pattern rendering instruction; and in response to that the queue to be displayed does not comprise an unprocessed pattern rendering instruction, controlling the external display terminal to display a predetermined work with rendering completed (par.90-95) . Regarding claim s 6 , 11, and 26 , Shimizu teaches wherein a correspondence between the renderable element and a predetermined identifier is present; performing, according to the painting attributes in the pattern rendering instruction, rendering on respective coordinate points to be rendered in a predetermined work to be rendered comprises: determining location information of the external display terminal and determining a predetermined identifier corresponding to the external display terminal according to the location information; detecting whether a renderable element in the pattern rendering instruction matches the predetermined identifier corresponding to the external display terminal; and in response to that the renderable element in the pattern rendering instruction matches the predetermined identifier corresponding to the external display terminal, performing, according to the painting attributes in the pattern rendering instruction, rendering on respective coordinate points to be rendered in a predetermined work to be rendered (fig.2A, par. 47-50, 80-85) . Regarding claim 7 , Shimizu teaches wherein after detecting whether a renderable element in the pattern rendering instruction matches the predetermined identifier corresponding to the external display terminal, the method further comprises: in response to that the renderable element in the pattern rendering instruction does not match the predetermined identifier corresponding to the external display terminal, obtaining a next pattern rendering instruction from the queue to be displayed in a chronological order (fig.2A, par. 47-50, 80-85) . Regarding claim 8 , Shimizu teaches wherein performing, according to the painting attributes in the pattern rendering instruction, rendering on respective coordinate points to be rendered in a predetermined work to be rendered comprises: in response to that the external display terminal is a predetermined target external display terminal, obtaining a pattern rendering instruction corresponding to each renderable element from the queue corresponding to the renderable element in a chronological order; and performing the rendering on all coordinate points to be rendered in the predetermined work to be rendered according to painting attributes corresponding to the coordinate points to be rendered in the pattern rendering instruction corresponding to each renderable element (fig.2A, par. 49-54) . Regarding claim 9 , Shimizu teaches wherein before obtaining a pattern rendering instruction, the method further comprises: obtaining an identification pattern associated with the predetermined identifier; obtaining a renderable element comprising the predetermined identifier; and entering a rendering interface (par.50-56, 98-103) . Regarding claim 12 , Shimizu teaches obtaining an interactive predetermined identifier corresponding to an interactive rendering element capable of being displayed in association with the renderable element; detecting whether a rendered pattern corresponding to the interactive predetermined identifier is obtained; and in response to that the rendered pattern corresponding to the interactive predetermined identifier is obtained, displaying a rendering of a renderable element corresponding to the predetermined identifier in real time, and displaying the rendered pattern corresponding to the interactive rendered element (fig.2A, par. 47-50, 80-85) . Regarding claim 13 , Shimizu teaches displaying an identification pattern associated with the predetermined identifier (par.141-145) . Regarding claim 14 , Shimizu teaches w herein the pattern rendering instruction is comprised in at least one pattern rendering instruction, and displaying the ren dering in real time comprises: displaying a rendering corresponding to the at least one pattern rendering instruction in real time (par.90-97) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to rendering processing. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT David García Cervetti whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5861 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3618 . 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. /David Garcia Cervetti/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409