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 .
Response to amendment
This office action is in response to an amendment filed on September 19, 2025 in response to PTO office action dated July 01, 2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Applicant’s response with respect to the rejection of claims under the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been fully considered. The terminal disclaimer filed in response to the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been acknowledged. As a result, the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
This action is NON-FINAL.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities, (ii) an idea of itself, or (iii) a mathematical relationship or formula.
Under the current 2019 PEG USPTO guidance, a two-step analysis is utilized to determine subject matter eligibility under 101.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20:
Claim category:
(1) Process/method: 1-14, and
(2) Manufacture/product/article (CRM):15-20
(2) Machine/system: none
(4) composition of matter: none.
Analysis:
1) Process: Claims 1-14 are directed to a method for identifying a portion of recorded telematics data, comprising series of steps. The claimed method is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e. a process (a series of steps).
(2) claims 15-20 are directed to an article, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, for causing generating a dynamic graph network for a plurality of documents in a corpus.
The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e. an article.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claims 1 and 15)
Regarding claims 1 and 15 the following limitation is directed to an abstract idea of: "identifying … recorded telematics data representing a physical transversal of a portion of a surface on which a vehicle may travels; assigning…ordinal values to a first segment and a second segment of the portion of the surface" are all abstract ideas, which can be mentally performed. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Claims 1 and 15)
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of one or more processors and storing the ordinal values instead the recorded telematics data.
These are high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) that recites using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The step of "storing the ordinal values instead the recorded telematics data” is an additional element and insignificantly more because it is merely storing and retrieving information in memory MPEP 2106.05(d) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B (Claims 1 and 15 )
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements, “processor”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to computer environment (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3).
Therefore, looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2 and 16
The analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claims 2 and 16.
Regarding claims 2 and 16 the following limitation is an abstract idea:
“identifying…a separating point on the portion of the surface, wherein the separating point is a physical intersection of the portion of the surface and a portion of another surface”.
The step of identifying…a separating point on the portion of the surface, wherein the separating point is a physical intersection of the portion of the surface and a portion of another surface is mental step and thus is not eligible under 101.
The further step include further identifying that can be performed mentally. These steps further look at identifying that has already been determined to be a mental process. There additional elements analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claims 2 and 16.
The same analysis is applied to dependent claims 3-4 because the dependent claims are merely elaborated on the abstract idea and do not add any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 5 and 17
The analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claims 5 and 17.
Regarding claims 5 and 17 the following limitation is an abstract idea:
“identifying…travel segments in the recorded telematics data”.
The step of identifying…travel segments in the recorded telematics data is mental step and thus is not eligible under 101.
The further step include further identifying that can be performed mentally. These steps further look at identifying that has already been determined to be a mental process.
The step of " storing the travel segments in the compressed representation of the recorded telematics data” is an additional element and insignificantly more because it is merely storing and retrieving information in memory MPEP 2106.05(d) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Regarding claims 6 and 18
The analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claims 6 and 18.
Regarding claims 6 and 18 the following limitation is an abstract idea:
“identifying…surface segments for surfaces specified in a map database and correlating…the travel segments and the surface segments to identify which surface segments were physically traversed.
The steps of identifying and correlating are mental steps and thus is not eligible under 101.
The further steps include further identifying and correlating that can be performed mentally. These steps further look at identifying and correlating that have already been determined to be a mental process.
The recited "a map database” is an additional element and insignificantly more because it is merely storing and retrieving information in memory MPEP 2106.05(d) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Regarding claim 7
The analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claim 7.
The limitations of in response to a request, searching, using one or more processors based on the ordinals, the compressed representation of the recorded telematics data to identify physical traversals through the physical intersection from a first surface to a second surface in the recorded telematics data, wherein the ordinals including a first ordinal associated with the first surface and a second ordinal associated with the second surface are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' and displaying data (i.e. outputting data) as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not provide integration into a practical application.
Regarding claims 8 and 19
The analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claims 8 and 19.
Regarding claims 8 and 19 the following limitation is an abstract idea:
“identifying virtual lines across the first surface segment and the second surface segment; defining, using one or more processors, a plurality of virtual lines that are angularly spaced about the separating point; and excluding, using one or more processors, virtual lines from the plurality of virtual lines that are not crossed by the portion of the surface”.
The steps of identifying, defining and excluding are mental step and thus is not eligible under 101.
The further steps include further identifying that can be performed mentally. These steps further look at identifying that has already been determined to be a mental process. There additional elements analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claims 8 and 19.
The same analysis is applied to dependent claims 9-11 and 20because the dependent claims are merely elaborated on the abstract idea and do not add any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 12
The analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claim 12.
Regarding claim 12 the following limitation is an abstract idea:
“identifying, using one or more processors, a plurality of separating points of surfaces; and combining, using one or more processors, a first separating point of the plurality of separating points and a second separating point of the plurality of separating points when a distance between the first separating point and the second separating point satisfies a criteria”.
The steps of identifying and combining are mental steps and thus are not eligible under 101.
The further steps include further identifying that can be performed mentally. These steps further look at identifying that has already been determined to be a mental process. There additional elements analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claim 12.
Regarding claim 13
The analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claim 7.
The limitations of accessing the recorded telematics data from a vehicle, wherein the recorded telematics data represents geospatial driving data captured for the vehicle while the vehicle is operated are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' and displaying data (i.e. outputting data) as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not provide integration into a practical application.
There additional elements analysis of the independent claims applies to dependent claim 13.
The same analysis is applied to dependent claim 14 because the dependent claim is merely elaborated on the abstract idea and do not add any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (US 20160171012 A1) in view of in view of Kelly et al. (US 20150073649 A1) in view of Fowe (US 20200258381 A1) further in view of Amigo (US 20110153367 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Davidson discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying, using one or more processors, recorded telematics data
representing a physical transversal of a portion of a surface on which a vehicle may travels (see Davidson paragraph [0004], determine an estimated distance for traveling from a first serviceable point to a second serviceable point, the estimated distance determined based at least in part on map data; (2) determine an actual distance traveled from the first serviceable point to the second serviceable point based at least in part on telematics data collected while a vehicle traveled from the first serviceable point to the second serviceable point)
storing the ordinal values instead of the recorded telematics data … (see Davidson paragraph [0053], telematics data associated with serviceable points, street networks, street segments, and/or the like can be collected to determine, evaluate, identify, or similar words used herein interchangeably the accuracy of digital maps (e.g., map data). To do so, appropriate computing entities (e.g., data collection devices 130, mobile devices 145, and/or other computing entities) can be configured to collect/capture and store telematics data as vehicles 100 travel, traverse or similar words used herein interchangeably street networks (or other areas) and/or as drivers operate the vehicles 100 and/or mobile devices 145. In one embodiment, the telematics data may comprise location data, such as longitude data, latitude data, altitude data, heading or direction data, geocode data, course data, position data, time data, as well as other types of data (including those previously described)).
Kelly expressly discloses assigning, using one or more processors, ordinal values to a first segment and a second segment of the portion of the surface (see Kelly paragraph [0029], an ordinal number that is independent of time is assigned to each DTC and condition or sensor data. When the DTC is output or generated, it can be associated with or assigned an ordinal number. And these ordinal numbers can be assigned without reference to the time at which the DTC is output).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kelly into the method of Davidson to have assigning, using one or more processors, ordinal values to a first segment and a second segment of the portion of the surface. Here, combining Kelly with Davidson, which are both related to data processing improves Davidson by providing system that generates a plurality of DTCs that collectively reflect what is happening at the vehicle, it can be helpful for diagnosis purposes to know which DTC occurred first, second, third,(see Kelly paragraph [0003]).
Fowe expressly discloses data representing a physical transversal of a portion of a surface on which a vehicle travels (see Fowe paragraph [0004], wherein the first road network format includes graph edges for the plurality of road links and graph nodes for the plurality of intersections, converting the road network data to a second road network format describing the road network, wherein the second road network format includes graph edges for the plurality of intersections and graph nodes for the plurality of road links, selecting a road link from the plurality of road links, calculating a related link subset from the plurality of road links for the selected road link, querying historical data for the related link subset, and calculating a predicted traffic level for the selected road link in response to the historical data for the related link subset; see Fowe paragraph [0070], At act S105, the controller selects a road link. The road link may be one road link of a route or a proposed route. For example, the controller may calculate multiple potential routes and compare the routes according to their respective traffic prediction values. For each route, each road link is selected and analyzed to determine a corresponding traffic prediction value. The distance of the road link along the route, in addition to the time to traverse earlier road links in the route, determines a time value for the selected road link).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fowe into the method of Davidson to have data representing a physical transversal of a portion of a surface on which a vehicle may travel. Here, combining Fowe with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing system that manages and tracks traffic information and derive travel times, guide driving behavior and optimize road infrastructure for cities (see Fowe paragraph [0002]).
Amigo expressly discloses a compressed representation of the recorded telematics data (see Amigo paragraph [0087], the processing may include summarizing telematics data collected over a period of time, filtering the raw data, encrypting, and/or compressing the telematics data. Some or all of the processing may be carried out by software executing on a user's home computer, on a computer of a third party monitoring service, or on a computer of a company operating a fleet of vehicles. In the fleet context, in particular, the processing may also include anonymizing data or aggregating data from multiple drivers into a fleet driving profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amigo into the method of Davidson to have a compressed representation of the recorded telematics data. Here, combining Amigo with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing efficient alternative telematics sensing system (see Amigo paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16 Davidson discloses identifying, using one or more processors, a separating point on the portion of the surface, wherein the separating point is a physical intersection of the portion of the surface and a portion of another surface (see Davidson paragraph [0053], telematics data associated with serviceable points, street networks, street segments, and/or the like can be collected to determine, evaluate, identify, or similar words used herein interchangeably the accuracy of digital maps (e.g., map data)… In one embodiment, the telematics data may comprise location data, such as longitude data, latitude data, altitude data, heading or direction data, geocode data, course data, position data, time data, as well as other types of data (including those previously described).
Regarding claim 3 Davidson discloses, wherein the separating point is a physical turning point of the portion of the surface (see Davidson paragraph [0053], telematics data associated with serviceable points, street networks, street segments, and/or the like can be collected to determine, evaluate, identify, or similar words used herein interchangeably the accuracy of digital maps (e.g., map data)… In one embodiment, the telematics data may comprise location data, such as longitude data, latitude data, altitude data, heading or direction data, geocode data, course data, position data, time data, as well as other types of data (including those previously described).
Regarding claim 4 Fowe expressly discloses wherein the separating point is a physical mid-point of the portion of the surface (see Fowe paragraph [0031], may generate data indicative of a road network graph based on the map data 31 and/or convert road network data from one format to another format. The road network module 37 may access the road network from the geographic database 123. The road network stored in the geographic database 123 may include road links and intersections for the connections of road links. The road links may be defined according to the intersections with other road links. The intersections may be defined according to the associated road links. The road links and the intersections may be defined according to geographic coordinates. For example, a road link may be stored with a starting geographic coordinate and an ending geographic coordinate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fowe into the method of Davidson to have data representing a physical transversal of a portion of a surface on which a vehicle may travel. Here, combining Fowe with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing system that manages and tracks traffic information and derive travel times, guide driving behavior and optimize road infrastructure for cities (see Fowe paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 5 and 17 Davidson discloses, identifying, using one or more processors, travel segments in the recorded telematics data (see Davidson paragraph [0004], determine an estimated distance for traveling from a first serviceable point to a second serviceable point, the estimated distance determined based at least in part on map data; (2) determine an actual distance traveled from the first serviceable point to the second serviceable point based at least in part on telematics data collected while a vehicle traveled from the first serviceable point to the second serviceable point); and
storing the travel segments … (see Davidson paragraph [0053], telematics data associated with serviceable points, street networks, street segments, and/or the like can be collected to determine, evaluate, identify, or similar words used herein interchangeably the accuracy of digital maps (e.g., map data). To do so, appropriate computing entities (e.g., data collection devices 130, mobile devices 145, and/or other computing entities) can be configured to collect/capture and store telematics data as vehicles 100 travel, traverse or similar words used herein interchangeably street networks (or other areas) and/or as drivers operate the vehicles 100 and/or mobile devices 145. In one embodiment, the telematics data may comprise location data, such as longitude data, latitude data, altitude data, heading or direction data, geocode data, course data, position data, time data, as well as other types of data (including those previously described).
Amigo expressly discloses a compressed representation of the recorded telematics data (see Amigo paragraph [0087], the processing may include summarizing telematics data collected over a period of time, filtering the raw data, encrypting, and/or compressing the telematics data. Some or all of the processing may be carried out by software executing on a user's home computer, on a computer of a third party monitoring service, or on a computer of a company operating a fleet of vehicles. In the fleet context, in particular, the processing may also include anonymizing data or aggregating data from multiple drivers into a fleet driving profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amigo into the method of Davidson to have a compressed representation of the recorded telematics data. Here, combining Amigo with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing efficient alternative telematics sensing system (see Amigo paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claims 6 and 18 Davidson discloses, identifying, using one or more processors, surface segments for surfaces specified in a map database; and correlating, using one or more processors, the travel segments and the surface segments to identify which surface segments were physically traversed (see Davidson paragraph [0049], the most efficient order for delivering items to the serviceable points, directions for traveling to and/or from the serviceable points, the estimated distance for traveling to and/or from the serviceable points, the expected time for traveling to and/or from the serviceable points, and/or the like. The term “route” is used generically to refer to any path traversed by a vehicle 100 see Davidson paragraph [0050], the mapping computing entity 110 can identify and/or retrieve map data associated with serviceable points and/or geographic areas. A geographic area may be one or more delivery routes, routes, delivery locations, parking locations, sidewalks, highways, trails, alleys, paths, walkways, streets, street segments, entrance or exit ramps, roads, zip codes, area codes, cities, counties, states, provinces, countries, and/or other identifiable location).
Regarding claim 7, Davidson discloses, in response to a request, searching, using one or more processors based on the ordinals, … to identify physical traversals through the physical intersection from a first surface to a second surface in the recorded telematics data, wherein the ordinals including a first ordinal associated with the first surface and a second ordinal associated with the second surface (see Davidson paragraph [0069] by storing telematics data in association with contextual data, the mapping computing entity 110 may later access and retrieve data from the same by searching the stored data by date, time, driver, vehicle, logged reason for and location of the data capture data capture, serviceable point, geocode, latitude and longitude point, or any other data field or combination of data fields associated with the stored telematics data.).
Amigo expressly discloses a compressed representation of the recorded telematics data (see Amigo paragraph [0087], the processing may include summarizing telematics data collected over a period of time, filtering the raw data, encrypting, and/or compressing the telematics data. Some or all of the processing may be carried out by software executing on a user's home computer, on a computer of a third party monitoring service, or on a computer of a company operating a fleet of vehicles. In the fleet context, in particular, the processing may also include anonymizing data or aggregating data from multiple drivers into a fleet driving profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amigo into the method of Davidson to have a compressed representation of the recorded telematics data. Here, combining Amigo with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing efficient alternative telematics sensing system (see Amigo paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 11, Fowe expressly discloses identifying, using one or more processors, the separating point based on surfaces specified in a map database (see Fowe paragraph [0031], may generate data indicative of a road network graph based on the map data 31 and/or convert road network data from one format to another format. The road network module 37 may access the road network from the geographic database 123. The road network stored in the geographic database 123 may include road links and intersections for the connections of road links. The road links may be defined according to the intersections with other road links. The intersections may be defined according to the associated road links. The road links and the intersections may be defined according to geographic coordinates. For example, a road link may be stored with a starting geographic coordinate and an ending geographic coordinate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fowe into the method of Davidson to have data representing a physical transversal of a portion of a surface on which a vehicle may travel. Here, combining Fowe with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing system that manages and tracks traffic information and derive travel times, guide driving behavior and optimize road infrastructure for cities (see Fowe paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 12, Fowe expressly discloses identifying, using one or more processors, a plurality of separating points of surfaces;
and combining, using one or more processors, a first separating point of the plurality of
separating points and a second separating point of the plurality of separating points when a distance between the first separating point and the second separating point satisfies a criteria (see Fowe paragraph [0030], The lane level traffic controller 121 receives map data 31 from the geographic database 123. The map data 31 may define a road network. The map data 31 may include road segments. The road segments may be indexed according to geographic coordinates. A road segment may be defined by two geographic coordinates, an origin geographic coordinate and an ending geographic coordinate. The road segment may be defined by a single geographic coordinate and a direction and/or distance for the road segment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fowe into the method of Davidson to have data representing a physical transversal of a portion of a surface on which a vehicle may travel. Here, combining Fowe with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing system that manages and tracks traffic information and derive travel times, guide driving behavior and optimize road infrastructure for cities (see Fowe paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 13 Davidson discloses accessing the recorded telematics data from a vehicle, wherein the recorded telematics data represents geospatial driving data captured for the vehicle while the vehicle is operated (see Davidson paragraph [0049] about traveling to different serviceable points on the street networks. For instance, the map data may include a route for delivering one or more items to different serviceable points, the most efficient order for delivering items to the serviceable points, directions for traveling to and/or from the serviceable points, the estimated distance for traveling to and/or from the serviceable points, the expected time for traveling to and/or from the serviceable points, and/or the like).
Regarding claims 14 Davidson discloses…geospatial locations of a vehicle on a travel path (see Davidson paragraph [0044],a “serviceable point” may be any identifiable location, such as one or more addresses, delivery locations, parking locations, sidewalks, highways, trails, alleys, paths, walkways, streets, street segments, entrance or exit ramps, roads, longitude and latitude points, geocodes, zip codes, area codes, cities, counties, states, provinces, countries, stops (e.g., pick up stops, delivery stops, vehicle visits, stops) geofenced areas, geographic areas, landmarks, buildings, bridges, and/or other identifiable locations).
Amigo expressly discloses wherein the compressed representation of the recorded telematics data (see Amigo paragraph [0087], the processing may include summarizing telematics data collected over a period of time, filtering the raw data, encrypting, and/or compressing the telematics data. Some or all of the processing may be carried out by software executing on a user's home computer, on a computer of a third party monitoring service, or on a computer of a company operating a fleet of vehicles. In the fleet context, in particular, the processing may also include anonymizing data or aggregating data from multiple drivers into a fleet driving profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amigo into the method of Davidson to have a compressed representation of the recorded telematics data. Here, combining Amigo with Davidson, which are both related to data management improves Davidson by providing efficient alternative telematics sensing system (see Amigo paragraph [0001]).
Allowable subject matter
Claims 8-10 and 19-20 allowed over prior art of record.
Remarks
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gellens et al. (US 20140094210 A1) discloses receiving the second signaling message over the communication session signaling protocol may further include receiving a request with respect to the first set of telematics data. The request may include the metadata based on the content of the first set of telematics data. In one example, the request may include a request to retransmit the first set of telematics data, a request to transmit an updated version of the first set of telematics data, or a request to transmit a different set of telematics data.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument states that “…amended claims 1 and 15 and each claim dependent therefrom, are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer…for at least this reason, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 and 15, and their respective dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument because the steps recited in the independent claims and their respective dependent claims are not pertain to an improvement to conventional function of a computer or to convention technology or technological processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited limitations places it within the capabilities of human mind. Absent any further technical detail, the recited steps of identifying, assigning and storing ordinal values data does not require any particular complexity of operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINKU W GEBRESENBET whose telephone number is (571)270-1636. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571- 270-1698. 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.
/DINKU W GEBRESENBET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164