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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 - 35 are allowed over the prior art.
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 21 - 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a method (21-27), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (28), system claims (29-35). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2 Analysis Step 2A: Prong 1
Based on the claims 21-35 being determined to be within the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). In the instant case, the claims 21-35 fall within the judicial exception of abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of (1) assigning a first task to a first task category, the first task category associated with a first paring strategy, (2) assigning a second task to a second task category being associated a second pairing strategy. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the rendering limitations cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of one or more generic computer components. As indicated in the MPEP, certain mental processes including thinking or concepts that can be performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions are abstract ideas MPEP $2106.04(a)(2) III. The same is true for all three independent claims. Accordingly, the subject matter of independent claims 21, 28, and 29 are abstract ideas providing mental processes.
Step 2A: Prong 2
As per independent claims 21, 28 and 29, the judicial exception (abstract idea) related to claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional subject matter of claim 1, which includes (1) obtaining an indication and (2) selecting a task category (3) employing a tasks strategy. (4) there is no mention of a computer or the like to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional subject matter does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis
Claims 21, 28, and 29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP $2106.05). As discussed above with the lack of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of claims 21, 28, and 29 are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional limitations (MPEP $2106.05 IA and MPEP $2106.05(d). As per independent claims 21, 28 and 29, the limitations of claim 21, are nothing more than mental conditions place on the abstract idea mentioned above. And these conditions in the wherein clauses are functions presumed to implemented in the generic computer mentioned above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, claims 21, 28 and 29 do not include additional subject matter that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to the dependent claims there are no other elements just more mental or abstract ideas performed on presumedly one generic processor or computer. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not include additional subject matter that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eT D-info-lsp.
Claims 21 - 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,717. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there are only small word or small phrase changes.
Claims 21 - 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there are only small word or small phrase changes.
Claims 21 - 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,331. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there are only small word or small phrase changes .
Claims 21 - 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,050,8861. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there are only small word or small phrase changes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 -272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571 -272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 - 7484.
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).
27Jun2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights