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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a respective assigned rank of the option” and should apparently recite “a respective assigned rank of the respective option”. Similarly for claims 11 and 20.
Claim 5 recites “each of the options” and should apparently recite “the each of the options”. Similarly for claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 first option”. However, “a plurality of options”, “each option”, “a respective option”, and “a first one of the options” have been previously introduced. It is not clear whether “the first option” is referring to “a first one of the options”, one of the other options, or is a new option. As a result of this antecedent ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Similarly for “the second option” and “the third option”. Similarly for claims 6-7, 10, 11, 16-17, 19, and 20. Note that
Claim 4 introduces “any option” and “an option”. It is not clear whether these are in reference to the plurality of options, the respective option, each option, etc. For example, “an option” could be intended to recite “an option of the plurality of options” or “an option of the first, second, and third options”, etc. The same applies to “any option”. As a result of this antecedent ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Similarly for claim 14.
Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective independent or intervening claim(s) and are rejected on the same basis.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
City of Boulder, https://web.archive.org/web/20231129021227/https://bouldercolorado.gov/ranked-choice-voting-practice, referred to as Boulder herein.
Hawkins et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0019036), referred to as Hawkins herein [cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 3/15/2024].
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulder in view of Hawkins.
Regarding claim 1, Boulder discloses a ranked-choice voting method comprising: st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, the ranking is indicated by the selection circle);
while at least a first one of the options and a second one of the options are in a selected state, the first option having a higher rank than the second option, receiving a user deselection input identifying the first option; in response to the user deselection input, updating the data to indicate that the first option is in the unselected state, wherein the ranks of options other than the first option are not modified in response to the deselection input (Boulder, Page 1 – Biking has a higher ranking than Running and Skiing. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response);
after updating the data in response to the user deselection input, receiving a user selection input identifying a third one of the options that is in the unselected state; in response to the user selection input, updating the data to indicate that the third option is in the selected state and to indicate that the rank of the third option is a highest rank not associated with any other option in the selected state; and providing an output indicating at least the ranks associated with the options in the selected state (Boulder, Page 3 – Input at Hiking to select it as rank 1. The circles are updated to output indication of the selected state. Pages 4 – Results of the vote are shown in response to completion indication).
However, Boulder appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hawkins discloses a voting interface (Hawkins, Abstract), including ranked choice voting (Hawkins, Figs. 21-23),
storing data voting data (Hawkins, Fig. 1 with ¶0098, ¶0104 – computer including processor and memory for processing the software implementation including receiving, storing and redisplaying votes cast. ¶0126, ¶0130, ¶0145 – storing and printing voting data)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include a computer implementation including a processor memory and storage based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize implementation of the interface through widely available computer hardware and architectures.
Regarding claim 2, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses before receiving the user deselection input: receiving an initial plurality of user selection inputs, each of the initial plurality of user selection inputs identifying an initially-selected one of the options; and updating the data to assign a respective initial rank to each of the initially-selected options, the ranks corresponding to an order of the initial plurality of user selection inputs (Boulder, Page 1 – Ranked choice voting interface including 6 options for ranked vote. Biking, Running, and Skiing are each in a selected state, as are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, the ranking is indicated by the selection circle. The ranking is indicated by the selection circles. Pages 5-7 – input order corresponds to selected ranks. In the example shown, the inputs are 1st, 2nd, 3rd correspond to ranks 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Other correspondence is possible. Hawkins, Fig. 1 with ¶0098, ¶0104 – computer including processor and memory for processing the software implementation including receiving, storing and redisplaying votes cast. ¶0126, ¶0130, ¶0145 – storing and printing voting data).
Regarding claim 3, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the output is provided only in response to a user input indicating that selections are complete, and wherein providing the output comprises causing the printing of a completed ballot or marking a preprinted ballot (Boulder, Page 4 – Results of the vote are shown in response to completion indication. Hawkins, Fig. 25 with ¶0177 – summary screen shown after the voter has completed voting. Voter is prompted to confirm the output. ¶0189, ¶0195 – printing the completed ballot in response to confirmation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder as modified to include printing ballots based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to create a paper trail or submit in a vote in an official vote count that requires printed ballots (Hawkins, ¶0012).
Regarding claim 4, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 3 above, and further discloses wherein, in the output, at least an unassigned one of the available ranks is not assigned to any option, and at least one rank lower than the unassigned rank is assigned to an option (Boulder, Page 8-9 – skipped choices will enable the ranks higher than the skipped rank to be counted).
Regarding claim 5, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses providing a visual display including a name associated with each of the options, an indication of whether each displayed option is in the selected state, and an indication of the rank of those options in the selected state, wherein the visual display is updated in response to the user deselection input and the user selection input (Boulder, Page 1 – Ranked choice voting interface including 6 options for ranked vote. Biking, Running, and Skiing are each in a selected state, as are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, the ranking is indicated by the selection circle. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response. See also Pages 5-7 – sequential selection).
Regarding claim 6, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses in response to the user deselection input identifying the first option, providing an audio output including a name associated with the first option and indicating that the first option is in the unselected state; and in response to the user selection input identifying the third option, providing an audio output including a name associated with the third option and indicating a rank of the subsequent option (Boulder, Page 1 – Biking has a higher ranking than Running and Skiing. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response. Hawkins, ¶0026-¶0027, ¶0040 – audio cues and confirmation of votes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include audio output based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the voting system is accessible by users with disabilities, including hearing disabilities (Hawkins, Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses receiving user navigation input changing which option in a list of the options is in focus; wherein the user deselection input identifying the first option comprises receiving a first predetermined user input type while the deselected option is in focus (Boulder, Pages 10-11 - Biking option is in focus (see black outline of the circle). Deselection of input Biking occurs while Biking is in focus. In this case the predetermined user input type is a mouse cursor selection);
and wherein the user selection input identifying the third option comprises receiving a second predetermined user input type while the deselected option is in focus (Boulder, Pages 12-13 – selecting Hiking as the 1st rank occurs while Biking is in focus. In this case the predetermined user input type is a mouse cursor selection).
Regarding claim 8, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 7 above, and further discloses in response to each user navigation input, providing an audio output indicating a name associated with the option currently in focus, and either an indication of a rank of the option currently in focus or an indication that the option currently in focus is in the unselected state (Boulder, Pages 1-2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response. Pages 10-11 - Biking option is in focus (see black outline of the circle). Deselection of input Biking occurs while Biking is in focus. In this case the predetermined user input type is a mouse cursor selection. Hawkins, ¶0026-¶0027, ¶0040 – audio cues and confirmation of votes at each step before and after each vote, including the name and number of candidates for whom they are voting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include audio output based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the voting system is accessible by users with disabilities, including hearing disabilities (Hawkins, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 7 above, and further discloses wherein the first predetermined user input type is the same as the second predetermined user input type (Boulder, Pages 10-11 - Biking option is in focus (see black outline of the circle). Deselection of input Biking occurs while Biking is in focus. Pages 12-13 – selecting Hiking as the 1st rank occurs while Biking is in focus. In this case the predetermined user input types are mouse cursor selection).
Regarding claim 10, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the user deselection input identifying the first option and the user selection input identifying the third option are both a puff input or are both a sip input (Boulder, Page 1 – Biking has a higher ranking than Running and Skiing. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Hawkins, ¶0012, ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0137 – sip-and-puff inputs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include sip-and-puff inputs based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the voting system is accessible by users with disabilities, including dexterity disabilities (Hawkins, Abstract, ¶0051).
Regarding claim 11, Boulder discloses a ranked-choice voting st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, the ranking is indicated by the selection circle);
while at least a first one of the options and a second one of the options are in a selected state, the first option having a higher rank than the second option, receiving a user deselection input identifying the first option; in response to the user deselection input, updating the data to indicate that the first option is in the unselected state, wherein the ranks of options other than the first option are not modified in response to the deselection input (Boulder, Page 1 – Biking has a higher ranking than Running and Skiing. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response);
after updating the data in response to the user deselection input, receiving a user selection input identifying a third one of the options that is in the unselected state; in response to the user selection input, updating the data to indicate that the third option is in the selected state and to indicate that the rank of the third option is a highest rank not associated with any other option in the selected state; and providing an output indicating at least the ranks associated with the options in the selected state (Boulder, Page 3 – Input at Hiking to select it as rank 1. The circles are updated to output indication of the selected state. Page 4 – Results of the vote are shown in response to completion indication).
However, Boulder appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hawkins discloses a voting interface (Hawkins, Abstract), including ranked choice voting (Hawkins, Figs. 21-23),
a ranked-choice voting apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to perform at least: storing data (Hawkins, Fig. 1 with ¶0098, ¶0104 – computer including processor and memory for processing the software implementation including receiving, storing and redisplaying votes cast. ¶0126, ¶0130, ¶0145 – storing and printing voting data)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include a computer implementation including a processor memory and storage based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize implementation of the interface through widely available computer hardware and architectures.
Regarding claim 12, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses before receiving the user deselection input: receiving an initial plurality of user selection inputs, each of the initial plurality of user selection inputs identifying an initially-selected one of the options; and updating the data to assign a respective initial rank to each of the initially-selected options, the ranks corresponding to an order of the initial plurality of user selection inputs (Boulder, Page 1 – Ranked choice voting interface including 6 options for ranked vote. Biking, Running, and Skiing are each in a selected state, as are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, the ranking is indicated by the selection circle. The ranking is indicated by the selection circles. Pages 14-16 – input order corresponds to selected ranks. In the example shown, the inputs are 1st, 2nd, 3rd correspond to ranks 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Other correspondence is possible. Hawkins, Fig. 1 with ¶0098, ¶0104 – computer including processor and memory for processing the software implementation including receiving, storing and redisplaying votes cast. ¶0126, ¶0130, ¶0145 – storing and printing voting data).
Regarding claim 13, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 3 above, and further discloses wherein the output is provided only in response to a user input indicating that selections are complete, and wherein providing the output comprises causing the printing of a completed ballot or marking a preprinted ballot (Boulder, Pages 4 – Results of the vote are shown in response to completion indication)See also, Hawkins, Fig. 25 with ¶0177 – summary screen shown after the voter has completed voting. Voter is prompted to confirm the output. ¶0189, ¶0195 – printing the completed ballot in response to confirmation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder as modified to include printing ballots based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to create a paper trail or submit in a vote in an official vote count that requires printed ballots (Hawkins, ¶0012).
Regarding claim 14, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 13 above, and further discloses wherein, in the output, at least an unassigned one of the available ranks is not assigned to any option, and at least one rank lower than the unassigned rank is assigned to an option (Boulder, Page 8-9 – skipped choices will enable the ranks higher than the skipped rank to be counted).
Regarding claim 15, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses provide a visual display including a name associated with each of the options, an indication of whether each displayed option is in the selected state, and an indication of the rank of those options in the selected state, wherein the visual display is updated in response to the user deselection input and the user selection input (Boulder, Page 1 – Ranked choice voting interface including 6 options for ranked vote. Biking, Running, and Skiing are each in a selected state, as are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, the ranking is indicated by the selection circle. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response. See also Pages 5-7 – sequential selection).
Regarding claim 16, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses in response to the user deselection input identifying the first option, providing an audio output including a name associated with the first option and indicating that the first option is in the unselected state; and in response to the user selection input identifying the third option, providing an audio output including a name associated with the third option and indicating a rank of the subsequent option (Boulder, Page 1 – Biking has a higher ranking than Running and Skiing. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response. Hawkins, ¶0026-¶0027, ¶0040 – audio cues and confirmation of votes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include audio output based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the voting system is accessible by users with disabilities, including hearing disabilities (Hawkins, Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses receiving user navigation input changing which option in a list of the options is in focus; wherein the user deselection input identifying the first option comprises receiving a first predetermined user input type while the deselected option is in focus (Boulder, Pages 10-11 - Biking option is in focus (see black outline of the circle). Deselection of input Biking occurs while Biking is in focus. In this case the predetermined user input type is a mouse cursor selection); and
wherein the user selection input identifying the third option comprises receiving a second predetermined user input type while the deselected option is in focus, the second predetermined user input type being the same as the first predetermined user input type (Boulder, Pages 12-13 – selecting Hiking as the 1st rank occurs while Biking is in focus. In this case the predetermined user input type is a mouse cursor selection).
Regarding claim 18, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 17 above, and further discloses in response to each user navigation input, providing an audio output indicating a name associated with the option currently in focus, and either an indication of a rank of the option currently in focus or an indication that the option currently in focus is in the unselected state (Boulder, Pages 1-2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response. Pages 10-11 - Biking option is in focus (see black outline of the circle). Deselection of input Biking occurs while Biking is in focus. In this case the predetermined user input type is a mouse cursor selection. Hawkins, ¶0026-¶0027, ¶0040 – audio cues and confirmation of votes at each step before and after each vote, including the name and number of candidates for whom they are voting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include audio output based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the voting system is accessible by users with disabilities, including hearing disabilities (Hawkins, Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Boulder as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the user deselection input identifying the first option and the user selection input identifying the third option are both a puff input or are both a sip input (Boulder, Page 1 – Biking has a higher ranking than Running and Skiing. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Hawkins, ¶0012, ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0137 – sip-and-puff inputs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include sip-and-puff inputs based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the voting system is accessible by users with disabilities, including dexterity disabilities (Hawkins, Abstract, ¶0051).
Regarding claim 20, Boulder discloses a st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, the ranking is indicated by the selection circle);
while at least a first one of the options and a second one of the options are in a selected state, the first option having a higher rank than the second option, receiving a user deselection input identifying the first option; in response to the user deselection input, updating the data to indicate that the first option is in the unselected state, wherein the ranks of options other than the first option are not modified in response to the deselection input (Boulder, Page 1 – Biking has a higher ranking than Running and Skiing. Page 2 – A deselection input is made for the Biking option at rank 1. The circles are updated to show that the 1st rank and Biking are no longer selected. Running and Skiing are not modified in response);
after updating the data in response to the user deselection input, receiving a user selection input identifying a third one of the options that is in the unselected state; in response to the user selection input, updating the data to indicate that the third option is in the selected state and to indicate that the rank of the third option is a highest rank not associated with any other option in the selected state; and providing an output indicating at least the ranks associated with the options in the selected state (Boulder, Page 3 – Input at Hiking to select it as rank 1. The circles are updated to output indication of the selected state. Page 4 – Results of the vote are shown in response to completion indication).
However, Boulder appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hawkins discloses a voting interface (Hawkins, Abstract), including ranked choice voting (Hawkins, Figs. 21-23),
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions operative, when executed by one or more processors, to perform a method comprising: storing data (Hawkins, Fig. 1 with ¶0098, ¶0104 – computer including processor and memory for processing the software implementation including receiving, storing and redisplaying votes cast. ¶0126, ¶0130, ¶0145 – storing and printing voting data)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface of Boulder to include a computer implementation including a processor memory and storage based on the teachings of Hawkins. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize implementation of the interface through widely available computer hardware and architectures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are at least relevant as indicated in the corresponding summary.
Way (US Patent Number 6,457,643) – preferential voting interface.
Raiz et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2001/0048448) – selection focus indication.
Byrne et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0246579) – preferential voting interface.
Mirzakhanova et al. (US Patent Number 8,417,563) – ranked choice voting interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174