DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 8/20/26 wherein:
Claims 1, 3, 6-13, 15, 18-20 are currently pending; and
Claims 2, 4, 5, 14, 16, and 17 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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, 3, 6-13, 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 13 and 20 recite a system and a computer-readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity:
receiving, over a network, a collection of data, the collection of data comprising information related to at least one of real-world and digital activities within a location;
analyzing the collection of data, and determining information areas for the location, the information areas corresponding to a portion of the location, each information area being a determined partition from the collection of data and comprising portioned data of the collection of data;
generating a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a set of interactive components, each interactive component comprising a displayable version of at least one information area; and
communicating, over the network, to a set of devices proximately located to the location, the UI for simultaneous display on the set of devices, the communication enabling functionality for accessing the information areas based on detected interactions with the displayed set of interactive components within the displayed UI;
receiving, over the network, from a device from the set of devices, input corresponding to an interactive component within the displayed UI, the input corresponding to a manipulation of the information area associated with the interactive component, the input comprising a data entry;
analyzing the input, and determining a type of action to perform respective to the UI, wherein the analyzing of the input comprises:
sorting the input as per content of the input, the sorting comprising extracting a context of the content using a semantic analysis;
tagging the input with a tag based on the extracted context;
identifying, from a repository of tags and their placing on the UI, the information area wherein the input is to be displayed based on the tag; and
determining, as the type of action, positioning of the input within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area, such that the portioned data of the identified information area is supplemented with the data entry; and
executing the determined action such that the displayed UI on the device from the set of devices is modified from an initial display to a modified display, the modified display comprising the data entry positioned within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area; and
updating the UI on the set of devices to reflect the input, wherein the updating comprises updating only the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area within the UI, and sending a message to at least a portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component.
The limitations constitute a digital learning board with a display sub-divided into multiple display fields that receives input from other electronic devices so that multiple users can collaborate using their devices to access, add to, and edit information from the digital learning board (see Specification ¶2-3), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a network, a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a set of interactive components, and a set of devices (each of which are considered computer components). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The limitations reciting
determining, as the type of action, positioning of the input within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area, such that the portioned data of the identified information area is supplemented with the data entry; and
executing the determined action such that the displayed UI on the device from the set of devices is modified from an initial display to a modified display, the modified display comprising the data entry positioned within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area; and
updating the UI on the set of devices to reflect the input, wherein the updating comprises updating only the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area within the UI, and sending a message to at least a portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component
provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes in a general application of the judicial exception (determining, as the type of action, positioning of the input within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area, such that the portioned data of the identified information area is supplemented with the data entry; and executing the determined action such that the displayed UI on the device from the set of devices is modified from an initial display to a modified display, the modified display comprising the data entry positioned within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area; and updating the UI on the set of devices to reflect the input, wherein the updating comprises updating only the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area within the UI, and sending a message to at least a portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the receiving, analyzing, generating, and communicating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7-12 and 19 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 13 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 13, however none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 3 and 15 further define the additional elements of a pop-up window and a new UI window. The computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 18 further define the additional elements of a tab. The computer element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Withdrawn, based on Applicant’s amendment.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1, 3, 6-13, 15, 18-20.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Gross et al. (US 9053583). Gross discloses a system for displaying patient data according to a theme (abstract).
Nolan (US 20170293951) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Nolan discloses a system for automatic categorization using an assessment engine (abstract).
Zhang (US 20170076225) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Zhang discloses model-based classification of content items (abstract).
Cronin (US 20150100892) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Cronin discloses a system for providing a user interface for user-specified context (abstract).
Referring to claim 1: The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a method comprising:
receiving, over a network, a collection of data, the collection of data comprising information related to at least one of real-world and digital activities within a location;
analyzing the collection of data, and determining information areas for the location, the information areas corresponding to a portion of the location, each information area being a determined partition from the collection of data and comprising portioned data of the collection of data;
generating a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a set of interactive components, each interactive component comprising a displayable version of at least one information area; and
communicating, over the network, to a set of devices proximately located to the location, the UI for simultaneous display on the set of devices, the communication enabling functionality for accessing the information areas based on detected interactions with the displayed set of interactive components within the displayed UI;
receiving, over the network, from a device from the set of devices, input corresponding to an interactive component within the displayed UI, the input corresponding to a manipulation of the information area associated with the interactive component, the input comprising a data entry;
analyzing the input, and determining a type of action to perform respective to the UI, wherein the analyzing of the input comprises:
sorting the input as per content of the input, the sorting comprising extracting a context of the content using a semantic analysis;
tagging the input with a tag based on the extracted context;
identifying, from a repository of tags and their placing on the UI, the information area wherein the input is to be displayed based on the tag; and
determining, as the type of action, positioning of the input within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area, such that the portioned data of the identified information area is supplemented with the data entry; and
executing the determined action such that the displayed UI on the device from the set of devices is modified from an initial display to a modified display, the modified display comprising the data entry positioned within the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area; and
updating the UI on the set of devices to reflect the input, wherein the updating comprises updating only the interactive component comprising the displayable version of the identified information area within the UI, and sending a message to at least a portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art. Claims 13 and 20 contain similar limitations.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out the support for the claim amendments.
Drawings
The replacement drawings submitted on 8/20/26 are entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Step 2A, Prong One – There is a Judicial Exception Recited
A. The claims recite an abstract idea
Applicant argues that the claims contain several limitations that “are not practices that people perform, manage, or organize,” that the claims do not recite an “agreement, contract, marketing activity, sales activity, financial transaction, or legal interaction” and therefore, the commercial or legal interaction subgrouping should not apply. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that the limitation regarding “for simultaneous display” is not a positive limitation and does not require the simultaneous displaying of the UI on a plurality of devices. As to the ”querying” limitation, Examiner cannot find such a limitation in the claims. Finally, as to the “updating only that interactive component” limitation, this limitation is considered an additional limitation and is further addressed under Step 2A, Prong 2.
As to the grouping of the claim limitations, the limitations constitute a digital learning board with a display sub-divided into multiple display fields that receives input from other electronic devices so that multiple users can collaborate using their devices to access, add to, and edit information from the digital learning board (see Specification ¶2-3), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification indicates that the claims are used for collaborating and sharing information with other users (see Specification ¶3-5). This falls under “interactions between people.”
B. Whether the claims can be performed as a mental process is moot, as the claims are not grouped as a mental process
Applicant argues that the claims are outside the mental process grouping. The Office does not suggest the claims are directed to a mental process; this argument is moot. Regardless, the computer devices (i.e., the processor, network, etc.) used in the claims are generic, as is discussed above, and are addressed as additional elements (see above). The Supreme Court has recognized that claims can recite an abstract idea, even if the claims are performed on a computer. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675 (concluding that the algorithm could be performed mentally even though the claims were carried out via “existing computers long in use”). Here, as is identified above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity.
C. The instant claims are not directed to a particular improved interface mechanism
Applicant argues that the claims recite “comparably specific interface structure and mechanism” to Data Engine Technologies LLC and to Trading Techs. However, Applicant did not establish how the claims are similar to Data Engine Technologies LLC or to Trading Techs. Simply referencing Data Engine Technologies LLC and Trading Techs and asserting that the cases are comparable, without providing any reasoning as to why the cases are similar, is not persuasive. Further, providing a “specific interface structure and mechanism” does negate that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
II. Step 2A, Prong Two – The Exception is Not Integrated into a Practical Application
A. Applicant identifies the improvement with particularity
Applicant indicates that the disclosure is directed to a user interface displayed simultaneously on multiple devices and alleges that when users at different devices contribute content to different partitions of a UI, the state rendered on the devices diverges, which is a problem arising specifically from the operation of networked display devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the invention is directed to this divergence problem. No portion of the Specification indicates that there is such a problem. Further, multi-computer collaboration is long known in the art. It is common for various computers to provide updated data to a single user interface. A technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the Specification. MPEP 2106.05(a). In this case, there is no such technical explanation, only results-oriented, functional claiming at a high level.
B. The instant claims do not recite a specific technical arrangement; rather they are directed to general purpose computer components
Applicant argues that the collection of data is partitioned, which makes any subsequent change “localizable to a single component.” The localization is not present in the claim limitations. Applicant then argues that the tag is resolved against “a repository of tags and their placing on the UI.” However, a repository of tags is simply information, and does not provide a specific technical arrangement. Further, the placing on the UI is not positively claimed. Finally, Applicant argues that the update is propagated by “updating only the interactive component” and by “sending a message to at least a portion of the set of devices to update that interactive component.” Updating an interactive component and sending a message are known computer functions. None of these limitations provide a particular machine or an improvement to technology or to a technical field.
C. The claimed improvement is not of a kind the Federal Circuit has found eligible
Applicant argues that the update message, together with the constraint that only the identified interactive component is updated, is the improvement, similar to Uniloc. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The court in Uniloc found the message improved the functioning of the network. No such improvement is identified here. The message itself does not provide a technical improvement to the UI.
Applicant also argues that the claims are similar to the rule set in McRO. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rule set in McRO was supported by the Specification as providing a technical improvement which allowed the computer to perform automated lip-synching and facial animation that was previously only able to be performed by humans. The instant case does not provide any such evidence of technical improvement.
D. The recitation of additional elements
Applicant requests several elements be considered as additional elements. Examiner notes that all non-abstract elements have been identified and considered as outlined in the rejection, supra.
E. The improvements inquiry
Applicant submits that the claims are evaluated based on the invention as a whole. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a). The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In this case, the claims have been considered as a whole and have not been found to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
III. Step 2B – Request Regarding the Evidentiary Basis
A. Request under MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)
Applicant references Berkheimer and the requirement that the additional elements that are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) include an evidentiary basis. Examiner notes that none of the claim elements are considered to be WURC.
IV. The Dependent Claims
Applicant identifies various dependent claims and limitations contained therein. However, Applicant does not show how any of these claim limitations provide eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
In response to the amendments, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In response to the amendments, these rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ayanoglu et al. (US 20230291776), directed to group visualizations in online meetings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights