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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 04/30/2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3-5, 9-13, and 17 are amended. This action is made 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a network computer system and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and Claims 17-19 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9 and 17: The limitation of “initiating a branching operation based on interpret a branch input action, to create, based on the main workspace data, branch workspace data that describes a branch design interface, the branch workspace data including a second hierarchical structure that describes a second set of nodes representing the branch design interface;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an input action by a user to start/create a branch workspace data based on main workspace data to include a tree/graph representing a user interface with pen and paper and/or generic computer. The limitation “updating the second hierarchical structure to reflect the change input actions to the branch design interface” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, a person may mentally or with the aid of pen and paper and/or generic computer modify branch workspace data to include changes to design interface including changes based on input actions. The limitation “determining, based on the main workspace data and the branch workspace data, a set of differences between the branch design interface and the main design interface, the set of differences including node differences between the first set of nodes an the second set of nodes; determining a logical grouping of chunk differences comprising node differences related to each other;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate differences through comparing branch design interface and main design interface and identify differences along with grouping them logically with the aid of pen and paper and/or a generic computer. Thus, a person may mentally create and update data along with realize differences of interfaces based on the data.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 9 and 17 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9 and 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “a memory sub-system to store a set of instructions; one or more memory resources storing interactive graphic design system instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations that comprise providing workspace data describing one or more design interfaces and the interactive graphic design system instructions to a user computing device, wherein the interactive graphic design system instructions, when executed at the user computing device”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions, executable by one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to” and “A method for operating a computing device comprising one or more processors” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite the following additional elements – “providing main workspace data describing a main design interface and interactive graphic design system instructions to a user computing device, wherein the interactive graphic design system instructions, when executed at the user computing device, causes the user computing device to:” “receiving main workspace data describing a main design interface, the main workspace data including a hierarchical structure that includes a set of nodes representing the main design interface, the main design interface including a layout of content that includes a plurality of objects, manipulatable by design input of a user;” and “programmatically capturing one or more change input actions performed by the user within the interactive graphic design system, wherein the one or more change input actions visually modify the branch design interface” which are mere extra solution activity for mere data gathering and presenting data which are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Further the steps “rendering the main design interface for display to the user at the user computing device” and “rendering a review interface comprising a visual representation of chunk differences, wherein the visual representation visually aggregates the logical grouping and provides a context associated with the logical grouping” and “displaying, within the review interface, a status indicator indicating that the chunk differences correspond to an addition of a node to the branch workspace data, a modification to a node in the branch workspace data, or a removal of a node from the branch workspace data” are also extra solution activity and insignificant extra solution activity presenting and manipulating data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 9 and 17 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9 and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment and/or are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. The steps “rendering the main design interface for display to the user at the user computing device” and “rendering a review interface comprising a visual representation of chunk differences, wherein the visual representation visually aggregates the logical grouping and provides a context associated with the logical grouping” and “displaying, within the review interface, a status indicator indicating that the chunk differences correspond to an addition of a node to the branch workspace data, a modification to a node in the branch workspace data, or a removal of a node from the branch workspace data” where the courts have identified mere display data/information on a display is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The limitations “providing main workspace data describing a main design interface and interactive graphic design system instructions to a user computing device, wherein the interactive graphic design system instructions, when executed at the user computing device, causes the user computing device to:” “receiving main workspace data describing a main design interface, the main workspace data including a hierarchical structure that includes a set of nodes representing the main design interface, the main design interface including a layout of content that includes a plurality of objects, manipulatable by design input of a user;” and “programmatically capturing one or more change input actions performed by the user within the interactive graphic design system, wherein the one or more change input actions visually modify the branch design interface” have been identified by the courts as mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 9 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 recites additional step of “apply it” activity, being analyzed under Prong 2 mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 3-4 recite additional post-solution activity for the visual representation which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are akin to presenting offers and gathering statistics. Which are also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05 (d). Claims 5-6 recite non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7-8 further recite pre and post solution activity akin to mere data gathering and storage of data which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Which are also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05 (d).
Claim set 9-16 and claim 17 are also rejected under the same rationale as claim set 1-8 for having similar limitations.
Claims 18-19 further recite pre and post solution activity akin to mere data gathering and storage of data which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Which are also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05 (d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued in pages 11-14 for claims that the limitations are not directing to an abstract idea limitations that can be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A.
The examiner respectfully submitted that the amended claims do include certain limitations that can be done in human mind with pen and paper based on the observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion concept. First of all, the rejection above clearly indicates which limitations are considered as abstract idea limitations, not all the alleged limitations in independent claims are considered abstract idea limitations but rather only the limitations initializing…; updating…; determining…; and determining… are considered as limitations that can be done conceptually in human mind with pen and paper under Prong I. Every other limitations are considered as additional elements and analyzed under Prong II rather Prong I as alleged. In addition, nothing in the claim as drafted that would prevent these limitations to be done in human mind with pen and paper. All the alleged improvement is not seen within these abstract idea limitations.
The applicant also argued in pages 15 for claims under Prong II step 2A that the claimed limitations are amended to integrate into a practical application by showing improvements to interactive graphic design systems that enable branching and merging of design interfaces represented as hierarchical node structures.
The examiner respectfully submitted that the amended claims including other limitations “receiving…”; “rendering…”; “programmatically capturing…”; “rendering…”; and “displaying…” as additional elements under Prong II do not seem to improve the interactive graphic design system as alleged. As drafted, the additional elements in these independent claims are merely collecting/gathering the information/data and rendering/displaying the collected/gathered/analyzed/manipulated information/data. There is no interaction within the graphic design system that would enable to improve the system as alleged by the applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
