DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 18/648,290 (04/26/24) filed on 05/05/25.
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 and 3 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 and 3 - 17 is/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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 15, is/are directed to a process (i.e., method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves mapping a first series of datapoints to a first circular sector; mapping a second series of datapoints to a second circular sector; rendering the first circular sector with the first series of datapoints; and adjacent to the first circular sector, rendering the second circular sector with the second series of datapoints, wherein the method further comprises rendering a value as a shaded sub- sector of the first circular sector and/or the second circular sector, value being data that is different from first series of datapoints and second series of datapoints, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (rendering circular sectors); commercial or legal interactions (rendering circular sectors); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (mapping, rendering).
The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to mapping a first series of datapoints to a first circular sector; mapping a second series of datapoints to a second circular sector; rendering the first circular sector with the first series of datapoints; and adjacent to the first circular sector, rendering the second circular sector with the second series of datapoints, wherein the method further comprises rendering a value as a shaded sub- sector of the first circular sector and/or the second circular sector, value being data that is different from first series of datapoints and second series of datapoints.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually mapping a first series of datapoints to a first circular sector; mapping a second series of datapoints to a second circular sector; rendering the first circular sector with the first series of datapoints; and adjacent to the first circular sector, rendering the second circular sector with the second series of datapoints, wherein the method further comprises rendering a value as a shaded sub- sector of the first circular sector and/or the second circular sector, value being data that is different from first series of datapoints and second series of datapoints. NOTE: (a) The claimed invention is silent regarding who or what may be performing the positively recited steps or acts. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) suggests the claimed invention may be from the perspective of any entity including a human operator for example. See also, MPEP §2111.
The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claimed invention does not recite the combination of additional elements performing the positively recites steps or acts. The claim(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., used as a tool to perform the generic functions of (a) data processing (e.g., “mapping”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data display (e.g., “rendering”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering datapoints), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 04/26/24 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Grinstein, WO 01/37072; Okuma, US Pub. No. 2018/0182138; Petro, US Pat. No. 7,692,653; and Wright, US Pub. No. 2022/0108786, operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data processing (e.g., “mapping”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data display (e.g., “rendering”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data processing (e.g., “mapping”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data display (e.g., “rendering”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 16 - 17 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent non-transitory machine-readable medium claim 1 and independent computing device claim 10 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “processor”) described in independent non-transitory machine-readable medium claim 1 and the components (e.g., “non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “processor”) described in independent computing device claim 10, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (non-transitory machine-readable medium, computing device) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 - 9 and 11 - 14 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
Title
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1.Applicant argues the claim(s) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to the fundamental economic or business practice of rendering visuals (e.g., rendering circular sectors).
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to rendering visuals (e.g., rendering circular sectors). Rendering visuals (e.g., rendering circular sectors), in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “contracts”, “legal obligations”, “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., “mapping a first series of datapoints to a first circular sector; mapping a second series of datapoints to a second circular sector; rendering the first circular sector with the first series of datapoints; and adjacent to the first circular sector, rendering the second circular sector with the second series of datapoints, wherein the method further comprises rendering a value as a shaded sub- sector of the first circular sector and/or the second circular sector, value being data that is different from first series of datapoints and second series of datapoints”).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “mapping a first series of datapoints to a first circular sector; mapping a second series of datapoints to a second circular sector; rendering the first circular sector with the first series of datapoints; and adjacent to the first circular sector, rendering the second circular sector with the second series of datapoints, wherein the method further comprises rendering a value as a shaded sub- sector of the first circular sector and/or the second circular sector, value being data that is different from first series of datapoints and second series of datapoints.”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Claims 15 - 17 are silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts. The claims may not necessarily be describing what a machine itself is doing, but may interpreted more broadly. For example, rendering visuals (e.g., rendering circular sectors) by a human operator. See also, MPEP§ 2111 Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Although claims 1 and 3 - 14 recite performance on a computer (e.g., “non-transitory machine-readable medium” comprising a “non-transitory machine-readable medium” and a “processor” in non-transitory machine-readable medium claims 1 and 3 - 9; “computing device” comprising a “non-transitory machine-readable medium” and “processor” in computing device claims 10 - 14), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process. Furthermore, the computer is being used as a tool or physical aid.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
2.Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant’s alleged improvement (i.e., “In this case, claim 1 recites improvements to the field of data analysis, at least by using data visualization techniques via non-transitory machine-readable media. Moreover, features of the amended independent claim 1 in particular, provides a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to map a series of datapoints. This is made clear by considering the claims in view of the Applicant's Specification and Figures, which describe a specific improvement to around the constraint of limited screen space within software tools designed for data analysis.” as described on pg. 8 of applicant’s remarks as filed 05/05/25) is merely invoking general purpose computer(s) (i.e., “non-transitory machine-readable medium” in claims 1 and 3 - 9; “A computing device comprising a processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium” in claims 10 - 14. NOTE: Although claims 15 - 17 are discussed in conjunction with claims 1 and 3 - 14, claims 15 - 17 are directed to a “method” that employs no technology or explicit technical implementation) as a tool; and does not improve upon the computer’s capabilities/ functionality or any other technology or technical field. See also MPEP §2106.05(a)(I)(II). Furthermore, with respect to the claimed invention, as represented by independent claims 1, 10 and 15, the improvements are merely “alleged” because the features relied upon (e.g., (a) user interfaces/ screens; and (b) software tools or technology (e.g., claim 15)) are not actually claimed.
Instead of describing improvements to the function of a computer system, applicant’s claimed arguments rely on the benefits of automation itself and are akin to an “apply it” rationale.
The claimed invention invokes computers or other machinery (i.e., “non-transitory machine-readable medium” in claims 1 and 3 - 9; “A computing device comprising a processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium” in claims 10 - 14. NOTE: Although claim 15 - 17 are discussed in conjunction with claims 1 and 3 - 14, claims 15 -17 are directed to a “method” that employs no technology or explicit technical implementation) merely as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., rendering circular sectors for data visualization) or uses a computer or other machinery (i.e., “non-transitory machine-readable medium” in claims 1 and 3 - 9; “A computing device comprising a processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium” in claims 10 - 14. NOTE: Although claim 15 -17 are discussed in conjunction with claims 1 and 3 - 14, claims 15 - 17 are directed to a “method” that employs no technology or explicit technical implementation) in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., rendering circular sectors for data visualization).
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or an equivalent of an “apply it” rational are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (f).
The claimed invention is limited to insignificant extra-solution activities. For example, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (e.g., “first series of data points”; “second series of data points”). For example, insignificant application (e.g., “rendering” circular sectors).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “first series of datapoints”; “second series of datapoints”); analyzing it (e.g., “mapping ….. to a first circular sector; mapping ….. to a second circular sector”); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., “rendering the first circular sector with the first series of datapoints; and adjacent to the first circular sector, rendering the second circular sector with the second series of datapoints, wherein the method further comprises rendering a value as a shaded sub- sector of the first circular sector and/or the second circular sector, value being data that is different from first series of datapoints and second series of datapoints.”) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
3.Applicant argues Example 39.
The facts associated with the claimed invention are more aligned with Example 47, claim 2 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples which were found to be ineligible.
For example, the claimed invention refers to the steps or acts being performed by a computer (e.g., (a) a “non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor …..” in claims 1 and 3 - 9; (b) a “computing device comprising a processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor ….” In claims 10 - 14; and (c) Claims 15 - 17 are silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts. The claims may not necessarily be describing what a machine itself is doing, but may interpreted more broadly. For example, rendering visuals (e.g., rendering circular sectors) by a human operator. See also, MPEP§ 2111 Broadest Reasonable Interpretation)). This language is very similar to the “at a computer” and “by the computer” language recited in Example 47, claim 2. In Example 47, claim 2 this language was considered to be recited at a high level of generality i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions.
Unlike Example 39 argued by applicant and Example 47 discussed here, applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to any technology in the artificial intelligence space (e.g., neural networks, artificial intelligence, machine learning, etc.). Based on the facts of applicant’s invention as claimed, the comparison made is unclear. Nevertheless, Example 47, claim 2 recites “using the trained ANN” and “outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN”. In Example 47, claim 2 this language was determined not to provide any details about how the trained artificial neural network (ANN) operates and merely provided a generic output.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or an equivalent of an “apply it” rational are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (f).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
Prior Art
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695