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 § 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 Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recites generic computer components, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The USPTO has published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, the Examiner first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, 2018)) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do the Examiner then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Guidance (Step 2B)).
Evaluate Step 2A Prong One
(a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea;
(b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In TABLE 1 below, the Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations that recite an abstract idea.
TABLE 1
Independent Claim 1
Analysis Under Revised Guidance
(a) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
(b) performing a first character assessment of a first character located at a first position in a character string;
“performing a first character assessment of a first character…” is an abstract idea, i.e., “mental process”, which can be performed in the human mind. A person can perform the assessment by observing of the character string.
(c) and during a search for a character subset in the character string, determining whether to bypass a character assessment of each character located in a search length span of the character string based upon the first character assessment of the first character located at the first position in the character string
“determining whether to bypass a character assessment of each character…” is an abstract idea, i.e., “mental process”, which can be perform in the human mind. A person can perform the determining step by evaluating and making a decision in the human mind.
In view of the above analysis, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the Revised Guidance because the limitations (b) – (c) each recite mathematical relationship, mathematical calculation and/or a mental process. Independent claims 10, 17 also recite an abstract idea because it includes similar limitations (b) – (h). Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 also recite abstract idea because they include limitations (b) – (c) by virtue of their dependencies to claims 1, 10 and 17, respectively.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 further recites additional limitations. However, these limitations are also recite abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process” similar to the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 17 discussed above.
Evaluate Step 2A Prong Two:
Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrated the recited Judicial exception into a Practical Application of the exception.
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis under the Guidance turns now to determining whether there are “additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The examiner determines whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions; and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”.
Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 10 recites limitations (a): “a system”, “a processor” and “a non-transitory memory”, which are simply a generic computer component to store and execute computer instructions, which causes a generic computer system to perform the operations recited in limitations (b)-(c). Independent Claim 17 further recites “an apparatus”, which is a generic computer component such as a data storage. The “apparatus recited in the claims are so generically that is represents no more than mere generic computer component to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance at 52 n.14 (“Performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping.”)
Evaluate Step 2B:
Evaluate whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not add any specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, claims 1, 10, 17 recite: “a system”, “a processor” and “a non-transitory memory”, which are mere generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality. 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. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichiriu et al. (US 2008/0071757 A1), hereinafter “Ichiriu”.
As per claim 1, Ichiriu teaches a method comprising:
“performing a first character assessment of a first character located at a first position in a character string” at [0228], [0242]-[0243];
(Ichiriu teaches receiving input string K1 “acidabcdedrain” for a match with the regular expression “acid[a-n]{6, 10}rain”. The cursor value C is initialized to C=0 at the bit position of the first “a” (i.e., “a first character”) appearing after the matching prefix “acid” (i.e., “a first position”)in the input string K1(i.e., “a character string”.) Ichiriu teaches the bitcheck co-processor is executing the bitcheck command on the selected character (i.e., “first character assessment”), then the count co-processor receives the compliance signal (CMPLT) for the currently selected character from the bitcheck co-processor, wherein the CMPLT indicates whether the current character is a member of the specified character set)
“during a search for a character subset in the character string, determining whether to bypass a character assessment of each character located in a search length span of the character string based upon the first character assessment of the first character located at the first position in the character string” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
(Ichiriu teaches the bitcheck co-processor is executing the bitcheck command on the selected character (i.e., “first character assessment”), then the count co-processor receives the compliance signal (CMPLT) for the currently selected character from the bitcheck co-processor, wherein the CMPLT indicates whether the current character is a member of the specified character set. Ichiriu teaches if the current character is not a compliance character, the count co-processor’s counter may reset CNT to its initial value. Data is then flush from the count co-processor internal register and processing terminated, and therefore bypassing character assessment of each of the remaining characters located in the specified range)
As per claim 2, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein “the search length span is a span of character positions spanning from, but not including, an end position of a potential character subset to a beginning position of the potential character subset” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
As per claim 3, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: “when the first character is of a second type, bypassing the character assessment of each character in the search length span” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
As per claim 4, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: “when the first character is of a first type, performing a second character assessment of a second character located at a second position in the character string” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
As per claim 5, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: “when the second character is of the second type, bypassing remaining character assessment of the characters remaining the search length span” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
As per claim 6, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising “when the second character is of the first type, continue performing character assessments of remaining characters in the search length span until a character assessment in the remaining characters in the search length span is of the second type or all the remaining characters in the search length span are of the first type” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
As per claim 7, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 6, wherein “wherein the character assessment in the remaining characters in the search length span is of the second type, bypassing the remaining character assessments of the character remaining in the search length span” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
As per claim 8, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 7, wherein “when all the remaining characters in the search length span are of the first type, the second character, all the remaining characters in the search length span, and the fist character are output as a detected character subset” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
As per claim 9, Ichiriu teaches the method of claim 8, wherein “a floor function is utilized to determine a number of characters assessed as a result of bypassing the remaining character assessments of the characters remaining in the search length span, the number of characters assessed as the result of bypassing the remaining character assessments of the characters remaining being utilized to determine a bypass efficiency” at [0221], [0228]- [0246].
Claims 10-17 recite similar limitations as in claims 1-9 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
As per claim 18, Ichiriu teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein “the bypass of the character assessment each character in the search length span occurs when the first character is non-numeric” at [0221]-[0228].
As per claim 19, Ichiriu teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein “the bypass of the character assessment of each character in the search length span does not occur when the first character is non-numeric character” at [0221], [0228], [0243].
As per claim 20, Ichiriu teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein “when the first character is numeric, the remaining character in the search length span are bypassed when a second character at the second position in the search length span is non-numeric” at [0221], [0228], [0243].
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights