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.
Claims 1-7, 9-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea of causing, a display of for a customizable automated program element, the customizable automated program element configured to accept a user-selected trigger event and corresponding custom expressions which programmatically defines a set of automated actions to be performed when the user-selected trigger event occurs, wherein during a providing of the user-selected trigger event the display provides a dynamically generated plain-language description of logic of the user-selected trigger event, wherein during a specification of the corresponding custom expressions the display provides one or more of syntax highlighting, auto-suggestions, or real-time error checking to guide a user as the user creates expressions and to verify accuracy to reduce a likelihood of user error; receiving a selection of: a trigger event; a set of workflows associated with the trigger event, wherein each workflow of the set of workflows is assigned a respective priority attribute indicating a respective priority of the workflow and a set of associated recovery actions; and a set of custom expressions, wherein each custom expression of the set of custom expressions corresponds to a respective workflow of the set of workflows and specifies one or more conditions associated with the trigger event; dynamically generating executable code corresponding to the set of workflows; receiving an occurrence of the trigger event; in response to a determination that the trigger event matches a custom expression for at least one workflow, performing a workflow of the set of workflows having a greatest priority and for which the associated respective custom expression is satisfied, wherein performing the workflow of the set of workflows includes executing the dynamically generated executable code corresponding to the workflow to perform a set of recovery actions associated with the workflow, wherein performing the workflow comprises performing the set of recovery actions associated with the workflow by way of the set of automated actions previously programmatically defined; and in response to a determination that the trigger event does not match any of the respective sets of custom expressions, performing a default workflow, wherein performing the default workflow includes performing one or more recovery actions associated with the default workflow. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 19 include: by a server, a user interface on a user device wherein the user interface includes an interface; the server, via the user interface of the use device; at the server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a server, a user interface on a user device wherein the user interface includes an interface; the server, via the user interface of the use device; at the server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Applicant’s specification and claims described [0103] The computer-readable storage medium can be any storage medium that can be read, written, or otherwise accessed by a general-purpose computing device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 19 recites similar limitations and is ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1 and 19 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-7, 9 and 21-22, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a device.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea of accept a user-selected trigger event and corresponding custom expressions which programmatically defines a set of automated actions to be performed when the user-selected trigger event occurs, wherein during a providing of the user-selected trigger event the display provides a dynamically generated plain-language description of logic of the user-selected trigger event, wherein during a specification of the corresponding custom expressions the display provides one or more of syntax highlighting, auto- suggestions, or real-time error checking to guide a user as the user creates expressions and to verify accuracy to reduce a likelihood of user error; receiving a selection of: a trigger event; a set of workflows associated with the trigger event, wherein each workflow of the set of workflows is assigned a respective priority attribute indicating a respective priority of the workflow and a set of associated recovery actions; and a set of custom expressions, wherein each custom expression of the set of custom expressions corresponds to a respective workflow of the set of workflows and specifies one or more conditions associated with the trigger event; corresponding to the set of workflows; receiving an occurrence of the trigger event; in response to a determination that the trigger event matches a custom expression for at least one workflow, performing a workflow of the set of workflows having a greatest priority and for which the associated respective custom expression is satisfied, wherein performing a workflow of the set of workflows includes executing the dynamically generated executable code corresponding to the workflow to perform a set of recovery actions associated with the workflow; and in response to a determination that the trigger event does not match any of the respective sets of custom expressions, performing a default workflow, wherein performing the default workflow includes performing one or more recovery actions associated with the default workflow. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 10 include: cause a display of a user interface on the electronic device wherein the user interface includes an interface for a customizable automated program element, the customizable automated program element configured to, programmatically defines a set of automated, dynamically generate executable code, executing the dynamically generated executable code, at a server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of cause a display of a user interface on the electronic device wherein the user interface includes an interface for a customizable automated program element, the customizable automated program element configured to, programmatically defines a set of automated, dynamically generate executable code, executing the dynamically generated executable code, at a server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 11-16 and 18, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 10. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 17, the claim 17 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10. In addition, they recite the additional element of user interface and server. This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that processing service here is intending the system to process information. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that Under Alice Step 2A, Prong Two, the claimed elements integrate the purported abstract concept(s) into a practical application and are therefore patentable, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 19 include: by a server, a user interface on a user device wherein the user interface includes an interface; the server, via the user interface of the use device; at the server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 10 include: cause a display of a user interface on the electronic device wherein the user interface includes an interface for a customizable automated program element, the customizable automated program element configured to, programmatically defines a set of automated, dynamically generate executable code, executing the dynamically generated executable code, at a server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to controlling price cascade movements in trading system, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the computing device is a generic purpose computing device. The applicant has not improved the computing device. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to TLI, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting TLI decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., the examiner respectfully disagrees. Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. is not analogous to the current claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to McRO, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike McRO, applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way computers store and retrieve data. Rather, applicant’s specification and claims described [0103] The computer-readable storage medium can be any storage medium that can be read, written, or otherwise accessed by a general-purpose computing device. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic device(s), computer and/or machine. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Core Wireless, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the patentable claims in Core Wireless, the current claims recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC is non-analogous case to current claims and current claims are not eligible under 101 based on MPEP. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument under Alice Step 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a server, a user interface on a user device wherein the user interface includes an interface; the server, via the user interface of the use device; at the server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Applicant’s specification and claims described [0103] The computer-readable storage medium can be any storage medium that can be read, written, or otherwise accessed by a general-purpose computing device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 19 recites similar limitations and is ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1 and 19 are not patent eligible. Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of cause a display of a user interface on the electronic device wherein the user interface includes an interface for a customizable automated program element, the customizable automated program element configured to, programmatically defines a set of automated, dynamically generate executable code, executing the dynamically generated executable code, at a server, a memory, a processor, an electronic device, the electronic device, and the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are like example 47 of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility examples, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract idea. The original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0103] The computer-readable storage medium can be any storage medium that can be read, written, or otherwise accessed by a general-purpose computing device. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695