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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 03/20/2026. Claims 1, 10, & 19 were amended in a reply filed 05/04/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pg. 11, that “Claim 1 does not claim a mathematical relationship, express a mathematical formula or equation, or recite a mathematical calculation to be performed. Therefore, Claim 1 cannot properly be considered as falling under the mathematical concepts grouping.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the following limitations recite a mathematical calculation: “calculating an anonymity score of the… document based on publicly available data of the entity; calculating a content specificity score of the… document based on a text analysis of the… document with respect to the computing product; calculating a perspective view score of the… document based on a sentiment of the… document; calculating a usage context score of the… document based on workload mentions within the… document; calculating a reliability score of the… document based on i) the anonymity score of the… document, ii) the content specificity score of the… document, iii) the perspective view score of the… document, and iv) the usage context score of the… document; calculating an acceptance score of the… document based on user-interaction data of a plurality of users with the… document; calculating a credibility score of the… electronic document based on a weighted average of the reliability score and the acceptance score.” Examiner respectfully submits that the claims explicitly recite the word “calculating,” and therefore recite “an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation.” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Therefore, the claims recite abstract ideas that fall within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 11, that “Claim 1 cannot properly be considered as falling under the methods of organizing human activity grouping.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, the limitations of “determining an accreditation of a review entity of a computing product: for each reduced… document of the second set of electronic documents: calculating an anonymity score of the… document based on publicly available data of the entity; calculating a content specificity score of the… document based on a text analysis of the… document with respect to the computing product; calculating a perspective view score of the… document based on a sentiment of the… document; calculating a usage context score of the… document based on workload mentions within the… document; calculating a reliability score of the… document based on i) the anonymity score of the… document, ii) the content specificity score of the… document, iii) the perspective view score of the… document, and iv) the usage context score of the… document; calculating an acceptance score of the… document based on user-interaction data of a plurality of users with the… document; calculating a credibility score of the… electronic document based on a weighted average of the reliability score and the acceptance score; updating, based on the credibility score of each of the… documents, a product profile of the computing product…; and generating a plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a thermal layout of computing components of the computing product of the product profile; identifying a particular permutated layout of the plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a maximized computing capability of the computing product” are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the above functions encompass adjusting product profiles based on evaluating the credibility of review sources and analyzing computing device configurations. The analysis of gathered industry information to adjust product profiles based on the credibility of review sources would be performed during marketing or sales activities or behaviors, as well as in business relations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Applicant next argues, on pp. 11 – 12, that “Claim 1 also does not recite mental processes because Claim 1's limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. In particular, "manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product" as recited in Claim 1, are not limitations the human mind is equipped to perform.”
Examiner respectfully notes that "manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product" has not been deemed to be a part of a recited judicial exception; rather, this functionality is post-solution activity (see below for a full analysis of this additional element).
Examiner further submits that the functionality of “generating a plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a thermal layout of computing components of the computing product of the product profile” and “identifying a particular permutated layout of the plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a maximized computing capability of the computing product” are indeed limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and therefore fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. The functionality of generating computing device configurations based on a thermal layout of computing components, maximized computing capability, and increasing an airflow at the computing product could be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, an engineer could – and would – perform an analysis of various possible layouts of the componentry of a computing device. The engineer could ascertain – in the mind or by use of a pen and paper – that a CPU should be placed a certain distance from a hard drive, for example, in order to increase a channel spacing for more airflow. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 12, that the limitations “identifying a particular permutated layout of the plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a maximized computing capability of the computing product; and manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” meet the consideration of “effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing” and therefore is “indicative that an additional element has integrated the exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner initially notes that Applicant has not described what, specifically, is the claimed article which is transformed to a different state or thing. The claims generically recite “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product,” which is recited at a high level of generality – as opposed to a high level of particularity. As per MPEP § 2106.05(c), “A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.” Examiner also submits that the additional element of “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” is insignificant, extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity) that is appended to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as well as mere instructions to apply the recited exception, because it does no more than merely invoke machinery as a tool to perform an existing process “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the step of “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” is only a field-of-use limitation and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP § 2106.05(c)). Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 12 – 13, that “the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application” because “improvement in the functioning of the computer by the claimed invention includes “identifying a particular permutated layout of the plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a maximized computing capability of the computing product; and manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology, because “identifying a particular permutated layout of the plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a maximized computing capability of the computing product” is a part of the recited judicial exception itself. That is, generating computing device configurations based on a thermal layout of computing components, maximized computing capability, and increasing an airflow at the computing product covers performance of the limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, which includes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). For example, an engineer could – and would – perform an analysis of various possible layouts of the componentry of a computing device. The engineer could ascertain – in the mind or by use of a pen and paper – that a CPU should be placed a certain distance from a hard drive, for example, in order to increase a channel spacing for more airflow. Therefore, the functionality of “identifying a particular permutated layout of the plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a maximized computing capability of the computing product” is a part of the recited judicial exception.
Furthermore, the additional element of “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” is insignificant, extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity) that is appended to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as well as mere instructions to apply the recited exception, because it does no more than merely invokes computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, the claims are directed to assigning a particular computer layout to maximize computing capability, which is analogous to a “method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair,” which the courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). Additionally, adding the final step of manufacturing an identified product layout is well known, does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention, and is an insignificant application, such as “Cutting hair after first determining the hair style,” In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Examiner further submits that adding a final generically-recited step of manufacturing an identified product layout to a process that only recites updating product profiles based on reviewer credibility (a mathematical relationship and certain method of organizing human activity), and identifying a particular computing device layout (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of updating product profiles or identifying a particular computing device layout.
Even further, under Step 2B, the additional element of “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, demonstrated by the generic description of product manufacturing in the instant specification at para. [0070]: “a computing product is designed and manufactured.” (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2.) and the Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)). Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception without additional elements that provide integration into a practical application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 9 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 10 – 18 are directed to a machine (i.e., system). Claims 19 – 20 are directed to a product. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 10, & 19 substantially recite: “determining an accreditation of a review entity of a computing product: for each reduced… document of the second set of electronic documents: calculating an anonymity score of the… document based on publicly available data of the entity; calculating a content specificity score of the… document based on a text analysis of the… document with respect to the computing product; calculating a perspective view score of the… document based on a sentiment of the… document; calculating a usage context score of the… document based on workload mentions within the… document; calculating a reliability score of the… document based on i) the anonymity score of the… document, ii) the content specificity score of the… document, iii) the perspective view score of the… document, and iv) the usage context score of the… document; calculating an acceptance score of the… document based on user-interaction data of a plurality of users with the… document; calculating a credibility score of the… electronic document based on a weighted average of the reliability score and the acceptance score; updating, based on the credibility score of each of the… documents, a product profile of the computing product…; and generating a plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a thermal layout of computing components of the computing product of the product profile; identifying a particular permutated layout of the plurality of permutated layouts of the computing product based on a maximized computing capability of the computing product.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction as well as in a mathematical calculation. That is, the functions in the context of claims 1, 10, & 19 encompass performing market research to adjust product profiles based on evaluating the credibility of reviewers, and determining product configurations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” Also, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas, which includes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), such as generating computer component layouts and identifying a particular layout based on a maximized computing capability. Additionally, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (e.g., calculating scores), then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” “Mental Processes,” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, & 19, as a whole, amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claim 1 recites the additional computer-related element of: “computer-implemented.” Claim 10 recites the additional computer-related elements of: “information handling system,” “processor,” and “memory media storing instructions executable by the processor.” Claim 19 recites the additional computer-related elements of: “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions” and “one or more computers.” In addition, claims 1, 10, & 19 recite the additional elements of: “electronic {document},” “stored at a storage device,” and “receiving a first set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the first set of electronic documents associated with the entity,” “training, at a first time, an electronic document crawling model based on the first set of electronic documents,” “for each electronic document of the plurality of electronic documents: identifying elements of the electronic document, including scripts; reducing the electronic document by i) removing portions of the electronic document related to headers, footers, navigation panes, and scripts that do not expose functionality of the electronic document and ii) maintaining the elements that expose functionality of the electronic document related to HTML tags, HTML elements, and scripts related to the computing product,” “receiving, at a second time after the first time, a second set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the second set of documents associated with the entity,” “applying the electronic document crawling model,” “reduce the second set of electronic documents,” and “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product.”
The additional computer-related elements of “computer-implemented,” “information handling system,” “processor,” “memory media storing instructions executable by the processor,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions,” and “one or more computers” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of “stored at a storage device” is insignificant, extra-solution activity that is appended to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “electronic {document}” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “receiving a first set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the first set of electronic documents associated with the entity,” “for each electronic document of the plurality of documents: identifying elements of the electronic document, including scripts,” “reducing the electronic document by i) removing portions of the electronic document related to headers, footers, navigation panes, and scripts that do not expose functionality of the electronic document and ii) maintaining the elements that expose functionality of the electronic document related to HTML tags, HTML elements, and scripts related to the computing product,” “receiving, at a second time after the first time, a second set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the second set of documents associated with the entity,” and “reduce the second set of electronic documents” is insignificant, pre-solution activity (i.e., data gathering) that is appended to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as well as merely generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” is insignificant, extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity) that is appended to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as well as mere instructions to apply the recited exception, because it does no more than merely invokes computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the step of “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” merely generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “training, at a first time, an electronic document crawling model based on the first set of electronic documents” and “applying the electronic document crawling model to” amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, such as mere electronic scanning) to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)), as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The extrasolution activity of “stored at a storage device” is similar to functionality found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting “Electronic recordkeeping,” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus does not amount to significantly more.
The pre-solution activity of “receiving a first set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the first set of electronic documents associated with the entity,” “for each electronic document of the plurality of documents: identifying elements of the electronic document, including scripts,” “reducing the electronic document by i) removing portions of the electronic document related to headers, footers, navigation panes, and scripts that do not expose functionality of the electronic document and ii) maintaining the elements that expose functionality of the electronic document related to HTML tags, HTML elements, and scripts related to the computing product,” “receiving, at a second time after the first time, a second set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the second set of documents associated with the entity,” and “reduce the second set of electronic documents” is similar to functionality found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” “Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document,” and “Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”), and thus does not amount to significantly more.
The post-solution activity of “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, demonstrated by the generic description of product manufacturing in the instant specification at para. [0070]: “a computing product is designed and manufactured.” (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2.) and the Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)).
Therefore, the additional elements of “computer-implemented,” “information handling system,” “processor,” “memory media storing instructions executable by the processor,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions,” “one or more computers,” “electronic {document},” “stored at a storage device,” “receiving a first set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the first set of electronic documents associated with the entity; training, at a first time, an electronic document crawling model based on the first set of electronic documents, including: for each electronic document of the plurality of documents: identifying elements of the electronic document, including scripts; reducing the electronic document by i) removing portions of the electronic document related to headers, footers, navigation panes, and scripts that do not expose functionality of the electronic document and ii) maintaining the elements that expose functionality of the electronic document related to HTML tags, HTML elements, and scripts related to the computing product; receiving, at a second time after the first time, a second set of electronic documents, each electronic document of the second set of documents associated with the entity; applying the electronic document crawling model to reduce the second set of electronic documents,” and “manufacturing the particular permutated layout of the computing product that maximizes a compute capability of the computing product, including an increased airflow at the computing product,” as recited in claims 1, 10, & 19, fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, & 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional element of “video associated with the electronic document” in claims 5 & 14 amounts to no more than merely generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) & MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights