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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 5/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 5 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and rejections under 112(b) noted in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The applicant respectfully submits that the claims as presented herein are patentably distinguishable over the art of record. In particular, the independent claims (1, 11, and 20) all recite that, in response to a "user selection input" that selects an option, the rank of that option is "assigned, by a processor" to be the "highest rank not associated with any other option in the selected state." Such a feature is not disclosed by the cited art. In particular, both the Boulder reference and the Hawkins publication (see FIG. 21) require users to make an express selection of the ranks of different options because the rank is selected expressly by the voter, not assigned by a processor as in the pending claims.
The Examiner agrees that, in Boulder as modified, the ranks are expressly selected by the user. However, the ranks are assigned by a computer with a processor in response to the selection (Boulder at least Page 1 and Hawkins, at least ¶0098-¶0104). In Boulder, the ranks are assigned on the right side of the output screen in response to user selection. Boulder, Pages 5-7, show this process happening as each selection is made. Each of the selected ranks are the highest rank not associated with any other option.
The Examiner suggests that claim amendments including a step of a processor determining a highest rank not associated with any other option and a subsequent step of assigning the selected item rank to be the determined rank, or similar, would appear to overcome the cited art. Applicant is encouraged to cite corresponding support for any such amendment.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 11, 12, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 should apparently recite “assigning, by the one or more processors
Claim 2 should apparently recite ”claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-23 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 claim(s) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites an “…interface that does not include separate entries for separate ranks…” (emphasis added). Applicant’s remarks dated 5/20/2026 does not appear to recite support for this limitation. The Examiner was unable to find support for this limitation in the Specification as originally filed. Accordingly, the subject matter described in this section is considered new matter. Similarly for claims 22-23.
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 [previously cited].
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) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 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 one of the options having a higher rank than the second one of the options, receiving a user deselection input identifying the first one of the options; in response to the user deselection input, updating the data to indicate that the first one of the options is in the unselected state, wherein the ranks of options other than the first one of the options 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 one of the options is in the selected state; assigning,
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),
including a processor and memory processing voting inputs and storing voting data (Hawkins, ¶0098-¶0104 – processor and memory executing the voting system program and processing, storing, and retrieving inputs. See also ¶0109, ¶0124-¶0131).
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 for processing voting inputs 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; assigning, by a processor, a respective initial rank for each of the initially-selected options, the initial ranks being assigned to 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 while still corresponding to the input order. 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); and
updating the data to indicate the assigned respective initial rank of each of the initially-selected options (Boulder, Pages 1 and 5-7 – initial input ranks are shown on the right side output updating with each selection).
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 of the plurality of options, and at least one rank lower than the unassigned rank is assigned to an option among the plurality of options (Boulder, Page 8-9 – skipped choices will enable the ranks higher than the skipped rank to be counted).
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 one of the options, providing an audio output including a name associated with the first one of the options and indicating that the first one of the options is in the unselected state; and in response to the user selection input identifying the third one of the options, providing an audio output including a name associated with the third one of the options and indicating a rank of the third one of the options (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 one of the options 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 one of the options 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 one of the options and the user selection input identifying the third one of the options 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 one of the options having a higher rank than the second one of the options, receiving a user deselection input identifying the first one of the options; in response to the user deselection input, updating the data to indicate that the first one of the options is in the unselected state, wherein the ranks of options other than the first one of the options 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 one of the options is in the selected state, assigning, 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),
including a processor and memory processing voting inputs and storing voting data (Hawkins, ¶0098-¶0104 – processor and memory executing the voting system program and processing, storing, and retrieving inputs. See also ¶0109, ¶0124-¶0131).
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 for processing voting inputs 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; assigning, by a processor, a respective initial rank for each of the initially-selected options, the initial ranks being assigned to correspond 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 while still corresponding to the input order. 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);
and updating the data to indicate the assigned respective initial rank of each of the initially-selected options (Boulder, Pages 1 and 5-7 – initial input ranks are shown on the right side output updating with each selection).
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 of the plurality of options, and at least one rank lower than the unassigned rank is assigned to an option among the plurality of options (Boulder, Page 8-9 – skipped choices will enable the ranks higher than the skipped rank to be counted).
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 one of the options, providing an audio output including a name associated with the first one of the options and indicating that the first one of the options is in the unselected state; and in response to the user selection input identifying the third one of the options, providing an audio output including a name associated with the third one of the options and indicating a rank of the third one of the options (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 one of the options 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 one of the options 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 one of the options and the user selection input identifying the third one of the options 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 one of the options having a higher rank than the second one of the options, receiving a user deselection input identifying the first one of the options; in response to the user deselection input, updating the data to indicate that the first one of the options is in the unselected state, wherein the ranks of options other than the first one of the options 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 one of the options is in the selected state, assigning,
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),
including a processor and memory processing voting inputs and storing voting data (Hawkins, ¶0098-¶0104 – processor and memory executing the voting system program and processing, storing, and retrieving inputs. See also ¶0109, ¶0124-¶0131).
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 for processing voting inputs 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights