Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 2-3, 6, 9-12 and 14-26 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 2-3, 6, 9-12 and 14-26 are directed to at least one statutory category, a system, a method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 2 or claim 14 or claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea of display on a first plurality of lines including a first line, wherein the first line, wherein each line in the first plurality of lines is associated with a corresponding value, wherein the first line is associated with a first value, wherein each line in the first plurality of lines overlays a corresponding region of, wherein the first line overlays a first region of; display on a second plurality of lines including a second line, wherein each line in the second plurality of lines is associated with a corresponding value, wherein the second line is associated with a second value, wherein each line in the second plurality of lines overlays a corresponding region of, wherein the second line overlays a second region of; detect a user input via to move a cursor displayed on across the first line and the second line without operation of a button of; set, in response to detecting the user input, moving the cursor across the first line without operation of the button of, a first parameter to the first value associated with the first line; set, in response to detecting the user input moving the cursor across the second line without operation of the button of, a second parameter to the second value associated with the second line; and send the set first and second parameters to. This concept of order entry actions 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 claims include: a computing device including a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the computing device is configured to: computing device; on a graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the user input device; the user input device; the user input device; a server. 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 elements 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. 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 computing device including a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the computing device is configured to: computing device; on a graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the user input device; the user input device; the user input device; a server 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, claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3, 6, 9-12, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 2. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 15-20, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 14. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 22-26, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 21. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 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. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections in regarding to Prong One of Revised Step 2A step, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 2 or claim 14 or claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea of display on a first plurality of lines including a first line, wherein the first line, wherein each line in the first plurality of lines is associated with a corresponding value, wherein the first line is associated with a first value, wherein each line in the first plurality of lines overlays a corresponding region of, wherein the first line overlays a first region of; display on a second plurality of lines including a second line, wherein each line in the second plurality of lines is associated with a corresponding value, wherein the second line is associated with a second value, wherein each line in the second plurality of lines overlays a corresponding region of, wherein the second line overlays a second region of; detect a user input via to move a cursor displayed on across the first line and the second line without operation of a button of; set, in response to detecting the user input, moving the cursor across the first line without operation of the button of, a first parameter to the first value associated with the first line; set, in response to detecting the user input moving the cursor across the second line without operation of the button of, a second parameter to the second value associated with the second line; and send the set first and second parameters to. This concept of order entry actions 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. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections in regard to Prong Two of step 2A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claims include: a computing device including a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the computing device is configured to: computing device; on a graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the graphical user interface; the user input device; the user input device; the user input device; a server. 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 elements 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. 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, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 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