Their objection of vagueness isn&#x27;t good in this case I feel. A patent is directed at skilled practitioners of the relevant arts, this document has sufficient detail to allow a programmer to implement the idea. Claims must define an area of technology otherwise patents would just be worked around and would provide no useful monopoly.<p>However it does appear to be anticipated by prior art mentioned elsewhere on the comments here. Given that, I&#x27;m surprised the patent wasn&#x27;t challenged: that suggests it either wasn&#x27;t useful to others or that the USA court system prevents lawful challenges to anticipated patents somehow (eg by burdening appellants - appealing against the grant - with costs).