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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 02/02/2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending and 1, 9 and 17 have been amended.
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 hierarchical structure that describes a 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 hierarchical structure included in the branch workspace data to reflect the changes 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 one or more differences as between the set of nodes of the main workspace data and the set of nodes of the branch workspace data; for at least one difference in the set of differences, determining one or more related differences to the at least one difference, wherein the at least one difference and the one or more related differences form a logical grouping of differences; and” 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 at least one difference in the set of differences, wherein the visual representation visually aggregates the logical grouping of differences and provides a context associated with the logical grouping of differences” and “displaying, within the review interface, a status indicator indicating that the at least one difference corresponds to an addition of a node to the branch workspace data, a modification to a node in the main workspace data, or a removal of a node from the main 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 at least one difference in the set of differences, wherein the visual representation visually aggregates the logical grouping of differences and provides a context associated with the logical grouping of differences” and “displaying, within the review interface, a status indicator indicating that the at least one difference corresponds to an addition of a node to the branch workspace data, a modification to a node in the main workspace data, or a removal of a node from the main 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 101 rejection. Regarding the remark that the amended claims recite specific features that produce technical improvement in computer functionality, the examiner would like to point out that the amendments are recited at a high level of generality and are akin to display of data as the courts have identified. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the remark that user interface/user experience improvements that result in improved computer functionality are patent eligible, the examiner respectively disagrees as the claims are recited at a high level of generality and the status indicator only requires display of one difference. Where the claimed features do not recite complex and large amounts of design changes, rather the amendments recite “programmatically capturing one or more change input actions…”, thus the examiner is interpreting one change input action. For the above reasons, the examiner is not persuaded by the remarks and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Thus, claims 1-19 are not patent eligible as illustrated in the updated 101 rejection and reasons above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193