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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more than the exception.
Regarding claim 1; Claim 1 recites the steps of
a) receive a markup document representing an optimization problem the markup document containing human language content and mathematical content;
b) parse the markup document into a symbolic model containing only symbolic code representing the optimization problem by: extracting at least one markup declaration from the markup document;
c) for the at least one markup declaration, extracting at least one respective math content span,
d) and extracting any respective metadata entity and any relationship between the at least one respective math content span and any respective metadata entity;
e) for the at least one math content span, generating a respective math content parse tree;
f) and converting the respective math content parse tree to symbolic code using any relationship between the at least one respective math content span and any respective metadata entity, the symbolic code forming the symbolic model;
g) and output the symbolic model associated with semantic metadata containing the at least one respective metadata entity
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites steps for example: receive a markup document representing an optimization problem the markup document containing human language content and mathematical content. Thus, the claim is a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. From the claimed language, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps a-d fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically:
Step a can be performed by a human as the human can receive a markup document representing an optimization problem the markup document containing human language content and mathematical content
Step b can be performed by a human as a human can parse the markup document into a symbolic model containing only symbolic code representing the optimization problem by: extracting at least one markup declaration from the markup document
Step c can be done by a human, as a human can for the at least one markup declaration, extract at least one respective math content span,
Step d can be done by a human, as a human can extract any respective metadata entity and any relationship between the at least one respective math content span and any respective metadata entity;
Step e can be done by a human, as a human can for the at least one math content span, generating a respective math content parse tree;
Step f can be done by a human, as a human can convert the respective math content parse tree to symbolic code using any relationship between the at least one respective math content span and any respective metadata entity, the symbolic code forming the symbolic model;
Step g can be done by a human, as a human can have a final output wherein the symbolic model associated with semantic metadata containing the at least one respective metadata entity.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 11 & 20 do not recite anything additionally. Hence, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above the claim does not recite any additional element sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, there are no additional element. (step 2B, No). The claim is not patent eligible.
2. Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 also recites a computing system and the additional elements of processing unit for carrying out the method, so the claim only recites generic computer component and is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the computer system is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed similarly above, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
3. Claims 2-10 depend on indicated rejected claim 1. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, claims 2-18 are also indicated as rejected subject matter.
4. Claims 12-19 depend on indicated rejected claim 11. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, claims 12-19 are also indicated as rejected subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS T. RILEY, ESQ. whose telephone number is (571)270-1581. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
MARCUS T. RILEY, ESQ.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2654
/MARCUS T RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights