DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary amendment filed 1/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been canceled, while claims 21-40 have been added. Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S) section must be updated. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 21-40 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a process.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an issue tracking system, including displaying, generating, receiving, and querying steps.
The limitations of displaying, generating, receiving, and querying are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements of independent claim 21 recite causing display of a queue panel including: a first queue category associated with a first set of issues maintained by the issue tracking system; a first issue count based on the first set of issues; a second queue category associated with a second set of issues maintained by the issue tracking system; a second issue count associated with the second set of issues; in response to a first request provided to the issue tracking system, causing generation of a first new issue associated with the first queue category; in response to a second request provided to the issue tracking system, causing generation of a second new issue associated with the second queue category; in response to a lapse of a first refresh rate associated with the first queue category: receiving a first queue refresh request; in response to receiving the first queue refresh request, querying a data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the first queue category to obtain a first update indicating the first new issue; causing the display of the first queue category to indicate a first updated issue count generated based on the first update; in response to a lapse of a second refresh rate distinct from the first refresh rate and associated with the second queue category: receiving a second queue refresh request; in response to receiving the second queue refresh request, querying the data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the second queue category to obtain a second update indicating the second new issue; and causing the display of the second queue category to indicate a second updated issue count generated based on the second update.
Additionally, the claim elements of independent claim 28 recite causing display of a queue panel including: a first queue category associated with a first set of issues maintained by the issue tracking system; a first activity data on the first set of issues; a second queue category associated with a second set of issues maintained by the issue tracking system; a second activity data associated with the second set of issues; in response to a first request provided to the issue tracking system, causing modification of a first issue of the first set of issues; in response to a second request provided to the issue tracking system, causing modification of a second issue of the second set of issues; in response to a lapse of a first refresh rate associated with the first queue category: receiving a first queue refresh request; in response to receiving the first queue refresh request, querying a data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the first queue category to obtain a first update indicating the modification of the first issue; causing the display of the first queue category to indicate a first updated activity data based on the first update; in response to a lapse of a second refresh rate distinct from the first refresh rate and associated with the second queue category: receiving a second queue refresh request; in response to receiving the second queue refresh request, querying the data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the second queue category to obtain a second update indicating the modification of the second issue; and causing the display of the second queue category to indicate a second updated activity data generated based on the second update.
Lastly, the claim elements of independent claim 35 recite causing display of a queue panel including: a first queue category associated with a first set of issues maintained by the issue tracking system; a first activity data on the first set of issues; a second queue category associated with a second set of issues maintained by the issue tracking system; a second activity data associated with the second set of issues; in response to a first request provided to the issue tracking system, causing a first new comment to be added to a first issue of the first set of issues; in response to a second request provided to the issue tracking system, causing a second new comment to be added to a second issue of the second set of issues; in response to a lapse of a first refresh rate associated with the first queue category: receiving a first queue refresh request; in response to receiving the first queue refresh request, querying a data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the first queue category to obtain a first update indicating the first new comment added to the first issue; causing the display of the first queue category to indicate a first updated activity data based on the first update; in response to a lapse of a second refresh rate distinct from the first refresh rate and associated with the second queue category: receiving a second queue refresh request; in response to receiving the second queue refresh request, querying the data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the second queue category to obtain a second update indicating the second new comment added to the second issue; and causing the display of the second queue category to indicate a second updated activity data generated based on the second update.
That is, other than reciting a graphical user interface of a user device communicably coupled to an issue tracking system, the claims limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a graphical user interface of a user device communicably coupled to an issue tracking system. The graphical user interface of a user device communicably coupled to an issue tracking system in the steps 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 component. Accordingly, this 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. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a graphical user interface of a user device communicably coupled to an issue tracking system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 22 and 23 further describe the first and second refresh rate and causing the display of the first queue category to indicate the first updated issue count. Claims 24-26 further describe the first queue category. Claim 27 further describes the first underlying parameter. Similarly, dependent claims 29-34 and 36-40 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a graphical user interface of a user device communicably coupled to an issue tracking system.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0040 and 0041 of the specification, “Fig. 3 depicts an example networked environment 300 in which various operations and techniques described herein can be performed. Example environment 300 includes a communications network 302, which interconnects user device 310 and an issue tracking system (ITS) 320. The client device 310 may be any devices suitable for performing client-side operations described herein, for example a mobile device (e.g., a tablet or mobile phone), a portable device (such as laptop computer), or any other computing device (e.g., a desktop computer). While only one user device 310 have been illustrated, an environment would typically include multiple user devices 310 interacting with the ITS 320.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Conclusion
With respect to independent claim 21, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, in response to a lapse of a first refresh rate associated with the first queue category: receiving a first queue refresh request; in response to receiving the first queue refresh request, querying a data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the first queue category to obtain a first update indicating the first new issue; causing the display of the first queue category to indicate a first updated issue count generated based on the first update; in response to a lapse of a second refresh rate distinct from the first refresh rate and associated with the second queue category: receiving a second queue refresh request; in response to receiving the second queue refresh request, querying the data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the second queue category to obtain a second update indicating the second new issue; and causing the display of the second queue category to indicate a second updated issue count generated based on the second update.
With respect to independent claim 28, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, in response to a lapse of a first refresh rate associated with the first queue category: receiving a first queue refresh request; in response to receiving the first queue refresh request, querying a data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the first queue category to obtain a first update indicating the modification of the first issue; causing the display of the first queue category to indicate a first updated activity data based on the first update; in response to a lapse of a second refresh rate distinct from the first refresh rate and associated with the second queue category: receiving a second queue refresh request; in response to receiving the second queue refresh request, querying the data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the second queue category to obtain a second update indicating the modification of the second issue; and causing the display of the second queue category to indicate a second updated activity data generated based on the second update.
With respect to independent claim 35, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, in response to a lapse of a first refresh rate associated with the first queue category: receiving a first queue refresh request; in response to receiving the first queue refresh request, querying a data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the first queue category to obtain a first update indicating the first new comment added to the first issue; causing the display of the first queue category to indicate a first updated activity data based on the first update; in response to a lapse of a second refresh rate distinct from the first refresh rate and associated with the second queue category: receiving a second queue refresh request; in response to receiving the second queue refresh request, querying the data store of the issue tracking system for issues associated with the second queue category to obtain a second update indicating the second new comment added to the second issue; and causing the display of the second queue category to indicate a second updated activity data generated based on the second update.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights