Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 02 February 2026.
2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 have been amended. Claims 6, 12, 18 have been cancelled.
3. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended now Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states starting with Step 2A Prong One: “The present claims do not fall within one of the enumerated categories, and so should not be considered directed to an abstract idea…; Regarding the argument for Step 2A Prong Two: “the claim is patent eligible under Prong Two because it recites a practical application of the judicial exception; Regarding the argument for Step 2B Prong Two: “Step 2B requires an analysis of whether the Claim recites "significantly more" than the judicial exception. Applicant respectfully submits that even if the present claims were directed to an abstract idea under Steps 2A Prong One and Prong Two, which they are not, they include meaningful limitations that amount to "significantly more." (see Remarks/Arguments pages 10-17). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims still recite under Prong One- Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As recited below, the business and administrative tasks, such as handling a sales opportunity, reviewing quotes, pricing labor/parts, and assigning resources are the core processes—obtaining product descriptions, generating a service ticket, calculating a price/quote, and scheduling a sequence of tasks based on resource availability—are fundamental economic and administrative practices long prevalent in business and commerce. Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The scheduling, mapping, and sequencing steps, which are cognitive functions that can be performed entirely in the human mind (or with pen and paper). See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components. For Prong Two: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (“a processor of a server; various modules; and non-transitory storage medium; ticketing system”, etc.) (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 4-10) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims simply take these standard business and project-planning concepts and instruct a generic computer to perform them more quickly. Reciting generic computer components does not render the abstract idea patent-eligible. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. For Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim relies on "at least one processor of a first server". Under established § 101 jurisprudence, merely reciting generic computer components (e.g., servers, processors) to perform an abstract business practice does not add an inventive concept. The sub-steps—obtaining data records, storing quotes, updating records, identifying task dependencies, and verifying resource availability—are all well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of enterprise software. The Federal Circuit frequently strikes down patents where the added steps are just instructions to "apply it on a computer" or represent incident rules of data manipulation (see AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc.) Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. When the elements are viewed as an "ordered combination," they merely string together a series of well-known information-processing steps. There is no specific improvement to the way the computer itself functions; it is just using computer automation to perform traditional project management and quoting tasks. In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (at least one processor of a first server) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the prior art arguments recited in pages 18-20 as rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wakelam (U.S. Patent No. 6,859,768) in view of Livesay et al. (Livesay) (US 2002/0046147) and in further view of Wells (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0184771), this rejection is withdrawn.
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, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely three “system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 still recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite methods of obtaining data, generating tickets, creating quotes, and scheduling tasks from below representative Claim 1 that describe steps that manipulate data and automate traditional administrative, financial, and organizational workflows. These limitations fall squarely into the following judicially recognized abstract idea groupings:
“a product data module, executing on at least one processor of a first server, obtaining a first data record corresponding to a sales opportunity for a customer, the first data record comprising a product description and a product class, the product class comprising at least one of a labor product, a parts product, and an agreements product;
a ticketing system, at the first server, generating a service ticket based on the first data record, the service ticket stored in a second data record;
a quoting module, at the first server, generating, based on a subset of product data stored in the first data record, a quote, the quote including the product of the first data record and a price of the product of the first data record, storing the quote in a third data record;
and updating the first data record with the quote;
and a project planning module, at the first server:
upon receiving an approval of the quote, obtaining the updated first data record comprising the quote;
generating, based on the product class and the quote, a plurality of tasks, each task associated with at least one of a resource type, a skill level for providing the product, a price for providing the product, a start time, a deadline, and an order;
determining at least one dependency relationship between a first task of the plurality of tasks and a second task of the plurality of tasks;
determining a sequence of the plurality of tasks based on the at least one dependency relationship;
identifying, for each of the plurality of tasks, a resource to perform the task; identifying availability of the resource of the plurality of resources;
scheduling for each of the plurality of tasks, that task based on the availability of the resource to perform that task, the sequence, and at least one of the start time and the deadline;
and at least one of the start time and the deadline;
and modifying the service ticket to include the scheduled tasks for providing the product to the customer”
As seen above, the claims as a whole recite certain groupings under the categories:
Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As recited above, the business and administrative tasks, such as handling a sales opportunity, reviewing quotes, pricing labor/parts, and assigning resources are the core processes—obtaining product descriptions, generating a service ticket, calculating a price/quote, and scheduling a sequence of tasks based on resource availability—are fundamental economic and administrative practices long prevalent in business and commerce.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The scheduling, mapping, and sequencing steps, which are cognitive functions that can be performed entirely in the human mind (or with pen and paper).
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (“a processor of a server; various modules; and non-transitory storage medium; ticketing system”, etc.) (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 4-10) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims simply take these standard business and project-planning concepts and instruct a generic computer to perform them more quickly. Reciting generic computer components does not render the abstract idea patent-eligible. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “a processor of a server; various modules; and non-transitory storage medium; ticketing system”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 4-10) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 204” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Moreover, the Examiner assesses that the contents of the claimed invention encompass an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Here, the claims purport selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, such as terms and progress events of a general-purpose computer used for collection, analysis and display (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-055, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). A financial institution system is able to obtain information about transactions using the Internet where the associated party may be requested to verify or approve the additional information (e.g., social media data from a social networking site of the account holder) related to the financial transaction (see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
These claims also pertain to a limited Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)). Similarly, these claims purport monitoring data related to financial transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, e.g., to execution on a generic computer, (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 D.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Also identifying a second person associated with a financial transaction based on the supplemental information for the financial transaction is limited because it did no more than describe how the abstract idea of processing of transaction information by providing enhanced transaction detail for financial statements could be accordingly used in the financial transaction market, (see Bilski, 561 U.S. at 595, 95 USPQ2d at 1010). Courts have described merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the construction project. Because limiting the application of the abstract idea to monitoring a construction project based on progress events of a schedule is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The financial institution computer system then creates an index and uses that index to search for and retrieve data (e.g., in this case, the system locates the supplemental information for the financial transaction by searching one or more secondary accounts of the account holder based on the transaction info) (see Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indemnity I: ‘434 patent). Also the claimed invention uses data import logic to search for status updates and other posts pertaining to the transaction and correlate the supplemental info found with the transaction. A court case cited for subject matter eligibility includes the ineligible (see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) for collecting data, manipulating data and displaying the results collected linking the transaction record to the supplemental information to the account holder on a graphical user interface which can be a series of dynamically generated web pages for users to access the financial institution computer system via an online platform. In the case of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), the court found that the administration of financial accounts and advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized webpages was not patent eligible. The Federal courts also noted that the claims in this case were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit, which is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods or organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.
Such combinations of additional elements mentioned do not provide an improvement to actual technology or the computer itself, because under considerations of at least “USPTO Memorandum - Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. and BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, November 2, 2016” p.2 ¶5-¶6, “Versata Dev. Grp. Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit No. 2014-1194 Decided July 9, 2015 2015 BL 219054 793 F3d 1306,115USPQ2d 1681” p.1683 ¶1, and “SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2017-2081 May 15 2018, 2018 BL 275333”, the asserted solution still needs to be a deliberate technological solution, not just an improvement of abstract exception itself or improving entrepreneurial objective.
Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Lakritz (US 8,489,980)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights