Here is an argument we are using in response to rejections under
35 USC §101 that allege the claims are directed to an abstract
idea and are patent ineligible. This is useful in Office action
responses, and appeals.
The situation we have seen multiple times is that the Examiner,
in an Office action, rejects the claims and cites a small number of
the claim elements such as "a processor" "a
memory" "a module," and an alleged abstract idea
such as an algorithm or data processing, and states that the claim
limitations, considered individually and as a whole, are not
significantly more than the abstract idea.
The argument, submitted in a response to the Office action or in
an appeal, is that the Examiner and/or the Office action have
committed a procedural error, and failed to analyze all of the
claim limitations. The assertion that the claim limitations
considered as a whole are not significantly more than the abstract
idea is an unsupported allegation, because the
