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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 13, 17, the limitation “the distance being measured in a predetermined direction along the boundary, starting from a predetermined of the points,” is unclear because it is not clearly understood which point is being intended.
Regarding claim 3, no antecedent basis found for “the self-intersecting stroke”
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “detecting an intersection between the outline and the stroke,” is unclear because claim 1 says the stroke being contained within an outline. It is unclear whether the outline is a separate structure or it defines the stroke.
Regarding claim 11, it is not clear which method steps the system is performing. Further, applicant asserts that the claim element “means for performing” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, it is unclear whether the claim element invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is not clear which structure of the system is performing the steps. If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Regarding claim 13, “the trigger logic” lacks antecedent basis in the claim .
Regarding claim 17, “the processor” and “the apparatus” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
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 1-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention (“A computer implemented method” in claims 1-11, “a system” in claim 11, “a non-transitory readable storage medium…computer,” (claims 12-14) and “a computer system” (claims 17) is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims limitations amount to an abstract idea:
receiving, via an input interface, a user input for altering a shaded region and/or an unshaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG), the shaded region being enclosed within a boundary, and the shaded region being surrounded by the unshaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG); the unshaded region and the shaded region being separated from each another by the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);detecting, via a trigger logic, completion of a stroke generated by the user input; the stroke being contained within an outline (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG), wherein the detection of a stroke completion involves:detecting an intersection of the stroke: with itself, or with the shaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);detecting formation of an enclosed region caused by the intersection; wherein the enclosed region is fully enclosed: by a part of the outline, or by the part of the outline and a section of the boundary, and wherein the detection of the enclosed region formed by the part of the outline and the section of the boundary further involves (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG):determining a plurality of intersection points between the outline and the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);forming at least one intersection pair from the intersection points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);computing a distance along the boundary lying between the points of at least one intersection pair; the distance being measured in a predetermined direction along the boundary, starting from a predetermined of the points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);relatively comparing the computed distance of at least one intersection pair with total distance of the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);determining from the comparison the enclosed region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);altering, the shaded region and/or the unshaded region, in response to the stroke completion either by filling the enclosed region such that it becomes shaded region, or by erasing the enclosed region such that it becomes unshaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG).
Regarding claim 11 a system comprising means for performing the steps of any of the above method claims (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG).
Regarding claim 12 receive, via an input interface, a user input for altering a shaded region and/or an unshaded region, the shaded region being enclosed within a boundary, and the shaded region being surrounded by the unshaded region; the unshaded region and the shaded region being separated from each another by the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);detect, via a trigger logic, completion of a stroke generated by the user input; the stroke being contained within an outline, wherein the detection of a stroke completion involves:detect an intersection of the stroke: with itself, or with the shaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);detect formation of an enclosed region caused by the intersection; wherein the enclosed region is fully enclosed: by a part of the outline, or by the part of the outline and a section of the boundary, and wherein the detection of the enclosed region formed by the part of the outline and the section of the boundary further involves (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG):determine a plurality of intersection points between the outline and the boundary;form at least one intersection pair from the intersection points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);compute a distance along the boundary lying between the points of at least one intersection pair; the distance being measured in a predetermined direction along the boundary, starting from a predetermined of the points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);relatively compare the computed distance of at least one intersection pair with total distance of the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);determine from the comparison the enclosed region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);alter, the shaded region and/or the unshaded region, in response to the stroke completion either by filling the enclosed region such that it becomes shaded region, or by erasing the enclosed region such that it becomes unshaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG).
Regarding claim 13,
detect an intersection of a stroke: with itself, or with a shaded region which is enclosed within a boundary; wherein the stroke is contained within an outline (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG),detect formation of an enclosed region caused by the intersection; wherein the enclosed region is fully enclosed: by a part of the outline, or by a part of the outline and a section of the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG), and wherein for the detection of the enclosed region formed by part of the outline and the section of the boundary the trigger logic is configured to:determine a plurality of intersection points between the outline and the boundary;form at least one intersection pair from the intersection points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);compute distance along the boundary lying between the points of at least one intersection pair; the distance being measured in a predetermined direction along the boundary, starting from a predetermined of the points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG),relatively compare the computed distance of at least one intersection pair with total distance of the boundary;determine from the comparison the enclosed region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG).
Regarding claim 17 receive, via an input interface, a user input for altering a shaded region and/or an unshaded region, the shaded region being enclosed within a boundary, and the shaded region being surrounded by the unshaded region; the unshaded region and the shaded region being separated from each another by the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);detect, via a trigger logic, completion of a stroke generated by the user input; the stroke being contained within an outline (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG), wherein the detection of a stroke completion involves:detect an intersection of the stroke: with itself, or with the shaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);detect formation of an enclosed region caused by the intersection; wherein the enclosed region is fully enclosed: by a part of the outline, or by the part of the outline and a section of the boundary, and wherein the detection of the enclosed region formed by the part of the outline and the section of the boundary further involves (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG):determine a plurality of intersection points between the outline and the boundary;form at least one intersection pair from the intersection points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);compute a distance along the boundary lying between the points of at least one intersection pair; the distance being measured in a predetermined direction along the boundary, starting from a predetermined of the points (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG),relatively compare the computed distance of at least one intersection pair with total distance of the boundary (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG);determine from the comparison the enclosed region;alter, the shaded region and/or the unshaded region, in response to the stroke completion either by filling the enclosed region such that it becomes shaded region, or by erasing the enclosed region such that it becomes unshaded region (abstract idea/mental process per 2019 PEG).
These claims amount to mere data manipulation that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (i.e. mental process).
Each of the independent claims recites a computer implemented method or non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions for causing computer to perform a method. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements/steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Each of the independent claims recites a computer implemented method or non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions for causing computer to perform a method the steps as additional elements. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no additional elements have been claimed to add significantly more to the exception. Therefore, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims further recite limitations of data manipulation, qualifying data, data acquisition and extra solution activity of data. These are not practical applications or significantly more than the abstract idea of respective independent claims. Therefore, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Patel Yogesh whose telephone number is (571) 270-3646. The examiner can normally be reached between 9 AM – 5:30 PM on Monday, Thursday and Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Bosques Edelmira, at (571) 270-5614.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH P PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights