Your source for guaranteed validations/valuations of patents
Introducing: the AI-accelerated KX Patent Analyzer, backed by powerful Patent Defense insurance

use of 'abstract' to destroy property rights is administrative/judicial abuse

A word that has no meaning in a legal context cannot be used to destroy a Constitutional-provided property right, which is a patent. The use of such a semantically meaningless word violates the Constitionally-guaranteed right of Due Process Public Notice - in this case, being given sufficient guidance by the government as to the meaning of a legal term that is being used to destroy property rights.

Use of a semantically meaningless term (thus making decisions using the term "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion") to destroy a Constitionally-guaranteed right is an administrative abuse under the Administrative Procedures Act, and a judicial abuse under the ... wait, there is no Judicial Procedures Act to hold federal judges accountable for their decisions that are "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion" decisions ( which is one definition of 'authoritarian').

Below are links to two graphical semantic diagrams that show that 'abstract' in the context of patent law -- has no meaning. While any one dictionary definition or bit of judicial dicta might have meaning, collectively, the circular nature of many of the definitions of 'abstract', and the judicial contradictions of what the judges think is the meaning of 'abstract', render the meaning of 'abstract' in patent law as to be meaningless. Any administrative agent, or federal judge, using the term is guiltly of administrative abuse and/or judicial unethics.
Note: the 'best' definition of 'abstract' seems to come out of the patent bar of Philadelphia. They define 'abstract' as 'jawn'.
Snapshots below.

The Shadow Patent Office, Mall Plaza Pance, Calle 18 #350, Avenida Cañagordas, Cali, Colombia
(c) 2021-2022 - The Shadow Patent Office (part of KukaXoco Colombia S.A.)