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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 10/8/2024, where claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if overcame the following rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 are allowable over the US Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0282265 (Shaich), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0144653 (Kline), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0158499 (Dev), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0366151 (Nakamura), the US Patent No. 11,226,720 (Vandivere), and the US Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0111932 (Roberge) teach creating sentence(s) presenting sentences including object(s). However, neither alone nor in combination, the above cited prior art teach in the context of ordering food items by receiving user selection of a first selectable object; in response to the selection, present a second selectable object; receiving user selection of the second selectable object; in response to receiving the second selection, generate an interactive message; where the interactive message includes a first modifiable object and a second modifiable object; where the first selectable object and the second selectable object are provided in the user interface in a first order corresponding to a second order of options provided at a location as claimed in claims 1, 14, and 20.
A double patenting analysis has been performed with respect to issued patents having common relationship of inventorship and/or ownership with respect to the above allowed claims, none found to require a double patenting rejection.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 20 respectively of the US Patent No. 12,112,019 (hereinafter the ‘019 Patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 14, and 20 of the instant application and the corresponding claims of the ‘019 Patent are disclosing the invention of system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium that receive user selection of a first object via a GUI, in response, provide a second object, generate an interactive message that includes a first and a second modifiable objects, where the first object and the second object are in an order corresponding to another order of option provided at a location. Claims 1, 14, and 20 of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding claims of the ‘019 Patent. Therefore, for the above reason(s), the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 3-13 and 15-19 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 3-13 and 15-19 respectively of the ‘019 Patent, as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘019 Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected to because of the following: claim 8 recites “[T]he second selectable object in the second portion and the first interactive message and the second interactive message in the first portion.” The elements “first interactive message” and “second interactive message” are recited with the article “the”, which indicates each is referring to a previously recited respectively element. However, no such elements are found. There is an element of “interactive message” recited in claim 1. However, it is unclear whether they are the same or different and distinct elements. As such, renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested to amend the above limitation to “[T]he second selectable object in the second portion and a first interactive message and a second interactive message in the first portion”, if they are different and distinct elements. It is suggested to amend the above limitation to “[T]he second selectable object in the second portion and the interactive message in the first portion”, if they are referring to the same element.
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, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regards to claim 1, at step 1, the claim recites a system, the examiner had interpreted it to be directed to one of four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a machine.
At step 2A, prong one, claim 1 recites facilitate generation of an interactive message including a first modifiable object and a second modifiable object based on a second selection of second selectable object.
The limitations of facilitate generation of an interactive message including a first modifiable object and a second modifiable object based on a second selection of second selectable object cover “providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity” constitutes an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.C.
For example, but for the “system”, “user interface”, and “order”, the language encompasses “providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision”. The mere nominal recitation of a generic device and a user interface do not take the claim limitations out of the organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the system, user interface, and ordering the selectable objects.
The system can be viewed as nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The user interface can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The ordering of the selectable objects can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 of the system amounts to no more than applying the exception with a generic, off-the-shelf-computer component, the user interface amounts to no more than data gathering, and the ordering of selectable objects amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, receiving user selection on a user interface and ordering of on screen objects, are previously known to the industry and require no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and ordering data. As discussed above, the system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, the user interface amounts to no more than mere data gathering to apply the exception, and the ordering of selectable objects amounts to no more than insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer, mere data gathering, and mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 2, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the generating first modifiable object to be provided via GUI in response to selection of first selectable object.
The generating one on screen object in response to selection of another on screen object in a GUI is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of generating one on screen object in response to selection of another on screen object amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, generating one on screen object in response to selection of another on screen object, is widely prevalent or in common use in the GUI industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of generic GUI interaction. As discussed above, the generating one on screen object in response to selection of another on screen object amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The same analysis applies here, i.e., well-understood, routine, and conventional activity cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere well-understood, routine, and conventional activity do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 3, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the import data structure.
The import data structure can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of import data structure amounts to no more than data gathering. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, import data structure, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of importing data. As discussed above, the import data structure amounts to no more than mere data gathering to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere data gathering do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 4, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the API call to determine.
The API call to determine can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of API call to determine amounts to no more than data gathering. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, API call to determine, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of calling a function to receive data. As discussed above, the API call to determine amounts to no more than mere data gathering to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere data gathering do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 5, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the first order.
The first order can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of first order amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, first order, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of ordering objects. As discussed above, the first order amounts to no more than mere insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 6, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the object(s) can be scrolled.
The object(s) can be scrolled can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of object(s) can be scrolled amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, object(s) can be scrolled, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of scrolling on screen objects. As discussed above, the object(s) can be scrolled amounts to no more than mere insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 7, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites sorting of list of objects.
The sorting of list of objects can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of sorting of list of objects amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, sorting of list of objects, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of sorting a list of objects. As discussed above, sorting of list of objects amounts to no more than mere insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 9, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites receiving user input to modify objects presented in GUI.
The receiving user input to modify objects presented in GUI can be viewed as nothing more than selecting type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of receiving user input to modify objects presented in GUI amounts to no more than selecting type of data to be manipulated. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, receiving user input to modify objects presented in GUI, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of receiving user input and modify the on screen object(s). As discussed above, receiving user input to modify objects presented in GUI amounts to no more than mere selecting type of data to be manipulated. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere selecting type of data to be manipulated cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere selecting type of data to be manipulated do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 12, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites receiving user input to modify object presented in GUI.
The receiving user input to modify object presented in GUI can be viewed as nothing more than selecting type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of receiving user input to modify object presented in GUI amounts to no more than selecting type of data to be manipulated. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, receiving user input to modify object presented in GUI, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of receiving user input and modify the on screen object. As discussed above, receiving user input to modify object presented in GUI amounts to no more than mere selecting type of data to be manipulated. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere selecting type of data to be manipulated cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere selecting type of data to be manipulated do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 13, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites modify object according to user input.
The modify object according to user input can be viewed as nothing more than selecting type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of modify object according to user input amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, modify object according to user input, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of receiving input to modify an object. As discussed above, modify object according to user input amounts to no more than mere selecting type of data to be manipulated. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere selecting type of data to be manipulated cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere selecting type of data to be manipulated do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 14, at step 1, the claim recites a method, the examiner had interpreted it to be directed to one of four statutory categories of invention, i.e., processes.
At step 2A, prong one, claim 14 recites facilitate generation of an interactive message including a first modifiable object and a second modifiable object based on a second selection of second selectable object.
The limitations of facilitate generation of an interactive message including a first modifiable object and a second modifiable object based on a second selection of second selectable object cover “providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity” constitutes an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.C.
For example, but for the “user interface” and “order”, the language encompasses “providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision”. The mere nominal recitation of a generic a user interface do not take the claim limitations out of the organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the user interface and ordering the selectable objects.
The user interface can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The ordering of the selectable objects can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 of the user interface amounts to no more than data gathering, and the ordering of selectable objects amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, receiving user selection on a user interface and ordering of on screen objects, are previously known to the industry and require no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and ordering data. As discussed above, the user interface amounts to no more than mere data gathering to apply the exception, and the ordering of selectable objects amounts to no more than insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere data gathering and mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 15, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 14, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites allowing user to interact with a GUI element.
The allowing user to interact with a GUI element can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of allowing user to interact with a GUI element amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, allowing user to interact with a GUI element, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of providing GUI for user interaction. As discussed above, allowing user to interact with a GUI element amounts to no more than mere insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 16, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 14, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites receiving user input to modify an object presented in GUI.
The receiving user input to modify an object presented in GUI can be viewed as nothing more than selecting type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of receiving user input to modify an object presented in GUI amounts to no more than selecting type of data to be manipulated. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, receiving user input to modify an object presented in GUI, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of receiving user input and modify the on screen object(s). As discussed above, receiving user input to modify an object presented in GUI amounts to no more than mere selecting type of data to be manipulated. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere selecting type of data to be manipulated cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere selecting type of data to be manipulated do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 17, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 14, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites forming an object.
The first order can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of forming an object amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, forming an object, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of forming an on screen object. As discussed above, the forming an object amounts to no more than mere insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 18, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 14, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites input and process.
The first order can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of input and process amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, input and process, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of accepting input and process data. As discussed above, the input and process amounts to no more than mere insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 19, At step 2A, prong one, the claim includes all limitations of claim 14, which recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the first order.
The first order can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 element of first order amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, first order, is previously known to the industry and requires no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of ordering objects. As discussed above, the first order amounts to no more than mere insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
With regards to claim 20, at step 1, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the examiner had interpreted it to be directed to one of four statutory categories of invention, i.e., an article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one, claim 20 recites facilitate generation of an interactive message including a first modifiable object and a second modifiable object based on a second selection of second selectable object.
The limitations of facilitate generation of an interactive message including a first modifiable object and a second modifiable object based on a second selection of second selectable object cover “providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity” constitutes an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.C.
For example, but for the “processor”, “user interface”, and “order”, the language encompasses “providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision”. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and a user interface do not take the claim limitations out of the organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the processor, user interface, and ordering the selectable objects.
The processor can be viewed as nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The user interface can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The ordering of the selectable objects can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional element that is 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 of the processor amounts to no more than applying the exception with a generic, off-the-shelf-computer component, the user interface amounts to no more than data gathering, and the ordering of selectable objects amounts to no more than insignificant application. Further, the Court has noted that all computer functions were “well-understood, routine, conventional activit(ies) previously known to the industry, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, and the recited hardware was purely function and generic” (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. In this case, receiving user selection on a user interface and ordering of on screen objects, are previously known to the industry and require no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and ordering data. As discussed above, the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, the user interface amounts to no more than mere data gathering to apply the exception, and the ordering of selectable objects amounts to no more than insignificant application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer, mere data gathering, and mere insignificant application cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor can it provide an inventive concept. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and mere insignificant application do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2022/0012825 (Yahata) – discloses method for providing menu for placing order for food at a restaurant.
US 2008/0052639 (Chun) – discloses method and system for providing personalized menu pages.
US 2021/0390881 (Ly Tan) – discloses interface for building plurality of sentences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
