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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (foreign priority application IN202441013070 filed February 23, 2024) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing simulated operations,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“retrieving non-flow-based content for two or more display presentations;
retrieving flow-based controls for the two or more display presentations,
wherein each particular flow-based control is associated with at least one particular display presentation and is selectable to direct the application to transition to the particular display presentation, and the non-flow-based content of each display presentation comprises one or more sets of data for display in one or more sections of the display presentation; and
generating each of a plurality of simulated display presentations by combining the flow-based controls and non-flow-based content retrieved from the first and second storage structures.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a first storage structure” and “a second storage structure,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “providing simulated operations,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a first storage structure” and “a second storage structure,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the elements of “a first storage structure” and “a second storage structure,” are best described in para. [0331] as follows: “[0331] FIG. 21 conceptually illustrates a computer system 2100 with which some embodiments of the invention are implemented. The computer system 2100 can be used to implement any of the above-described computers and servers. As such, it can be used to execute any of the above described processes. This computer system includes various types of non-transitory machine readable media and interfaces for various other types of machine readable media. Computer system 2100 includes a bus 2105, processing unit(s) 2110, a system memory 2125, a read-only memory 2130, a permanent storage device 2135, input devices 2140, and output devices 2145.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-22 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-22 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites “a first storage structure” and “a second storage structure.” The specification as originally filed does not provide that “a first storage structure” and “a second storage structure” can only be of a non-transitory embodiment. Though one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this limitation includes elements such as a hard-drive, the limitation also encompasses transitory elements such as data signals and carrier waves, which are non-statutory per se. As the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes non-statutory embodiments, the claim is rejected as being non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715