DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
RCE Acknowledgement
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 11/21/2025 under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114, and the Applicant's RCE submission filed on 21 NOVEMBER 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 26-28, 30-32, 34-36, 39-50 and 76-77 are pending in the instant application per RCE claim amendments filed on 11/21/2025. Claim 26 has been amended. Claims 1-25, 29, 33, 37-38, 51-75 and 78 are cancelled.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection in response to RCE claim amendments and the remarks filed on 21 NOVEMBER 2025 by Applicant, for its original application filed on 09/12/2008 that is titled: “Client Relationship Manager”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 26-28, 30-32, 34-36, 39-50 & 76-77 are now being rejected herein.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in RCE on 11/21/2025 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
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 26-28, 30-32, 34-37, 39-50 & 76-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claim 26 is the only independent system claim.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 26: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations for a client relationship management system (with a financial institution) that are directed to collecting information about a client and creating an automated client profile, completing a client profile that serves as a repository for reference, compiling information to generate a validation summary and transmitting the information, setting and updating expectations regarding account usage, creating a client profile, validating the client profile, and reviewing the validating account. These limitations, as drafted, are processes/steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or as a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer and generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a client computer and a network data channel” using “a client information collection terminal, a validation terminal and a subsequent review terminal”; as well as “a validation summary generator, a client activity expectations generator having computer-executable instructions, and a client profile generator”, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the human mind or by organizing human activity. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer and generic computer components language, the claims of the instant application are directed to performance of certain transactions (account usage/ activity) and risk determination, which are directed to an abstract idea. Finally, the claim also updates the validation summary in one of the steps to include “client profile is updated and as the system prompts for missing until all necessary client information is collected”. These limitations are mental processes or organizing human activities of the group “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (Step 2A1 -- YES), which include fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial or legal interactions; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations of: using an operator screen, a client display screen, a GUI (graphical user interface), a client information collection terminal containing logic to only ask for information needed, a validation summary window (user interface) and a server to perform the steps, like dynamically updating features, which are mainly parts of a computer; and subsequent review terminal further comprising a subsequent review date setter configured to set the subsequent review date based on the updated risk determination. The processor (computer) in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. And claim amendments added as: “wherein the information fields have a logic background to query for necessary subsequent client information based on previously collected client information” and “subsequent review terminal limitation” in Claim 26, are no more than an extra-solution activities. These generic processor and additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and component/s. The computer, the interface and the terminal are tools used to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claims provide inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For the additional steps of using an operator screen, a client display screen and a server to perform the steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the client relationship management system is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer and component/s, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments like dynamically updating features, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent Claim 26. Furthermore, the dependent Claims 27-28, 30-32, 34-36, 39-50 & 76-77 do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of independent Claim 26, and these dependent claims further narrow independent Claim 26 with additional steps and limitations.
Therefore, the aforesaid Claims 26-28, 30-32, 34-37, 39-50 and 76-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's RCE remarks and claim amendments dated 21 NOVEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of pending Claims 26-28, 30-32, 34-36, 39-50 and 76-77 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive. Thus, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is being maintained herein, as described above.
In response to Applicant’s RCE arguments of 11/21/2025 that incorporate “subsequent review terminal limitations”, Examiner respectfully disagrees that said RCE amendment/s will overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner notes that the Applicant’s own Specification does not describe a “subsequent review terminal” as anything more than a general purpose computer (see below also) with a display screen as described on its Page 5 of 18 as follows ---
{“The subsequent review terminal of the client relationship management system can include a client profile updater configured to update the client profile with an updated risk determination, if there is a change in the client information, and a subsequent review date setter configured to set the subsequent review date based on the updated risk determination.”}
Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from the previous office actions (to include Example 37 in updated para 13. below). The claim amendments of 07/03/2025 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above-mentioned steps. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections.
Examiner notes that the Applicant’s own Specification “does not describe more than a generic computer”, but it describes “a general-purpose computer” on pages 14-15 as follows ---
{“In one implementation, a general-purpose computer can have an internal or external memory for storing data and programs such as an operating system (e.g., DOS, Windows 2000TM, Windows XPTM, Windows NTTM, OS/2, UNIX or Linux) and one or more application programs. Examples of application programs include computer programs implementing the techniques described herein, authoring applications (e.g., word processing programs, database programs, spreadsheet programs, or graphics programs) capable of generating documents or other electronic content; client applications (e.g., an Internet Service Provider (ISP) client, an e- mail client, or an instant messaging (IM) client) capable of communicating with other computer users, accessing various computer resources, and viewing, creating, or otherwise manipulating electronic content; and browser applications (e.g., Microsoft's Internet Explorer) capable of rendering standard Internet content and other content formatted according to standard protocols such as the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP).
One or more of the application programs can be installed on the internal or external storage of the general-purpose computer. Alternatively, in another implementation, application programs can be externally stored in and/or performed by one or more device(s) external to the general-purpose computer.
The general-purpose computer includes a central processing unit (CPU) for executing instructions in response to commands, and a communication device for sending and receiving data. One example of the communication device is a modem. Other examples include a transceiver, a communication card, a satellite dish, an antenna, a network adapter, or some other mechanism capable of transmitting and receiving data over a communications link through a wired or wireless data pathway.
The general-purpose computer can include an input/output interface that enables wired or wireless connection to various peripheral devices. Examples of peripheral devices include, but are not limited to, a mouse, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a keyboard, a display monitor with or without a touch screen input, and an audiovisual input device. In another implementation, the peripheral devices can themselves include the functionality of the general-purpose computer. For example, the mobile phone or the PDA can include computing and networking capabilities and function as a general purpose computer by accessing the delivery network and communicating with other computer systems. Examples of a delivery network include the Internet, the World Wide Web, WANs, LANs, analog or digital wired and wireless telephone networks (e.g., Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), and Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL)), radio, television, cable, or satellite systems, and other delivery mechanisms for carrying data. A communications link can include communication pathways that enable communications through one or more delivery networks.”}.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments citing Example 37 from the Office’s web site does not apply here. Examiner understands that Example 37, claims 1 and 2 have to do with locating icons on a GUI based on frequency of use, so that the most frequently used icons are positioned closest to the start icon so the user can quickly get to it (some sort of short cut). Thus, these claims were determined to be eligible to overcome 101 based on that concept. However, the current claimed invention does nothing other than present information, and is thus not an improvement to GUI interface, but it is just a generic interface doing its basic GUI function such as acting as a means to collect and display information. Examiner notes that the instant application’s Specification only once recites an icon as in “include a colored icon”, and thus, no multiple icons are recited as is the case in Example 37. Therefore, Example 37 does not apply here to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 as described herein above.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 07/25/2024 traversing the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments of “meaningful limits” citing Vanda Pharmaceuticals vs. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887 F.3d 1117 (2018). Also, Examiner notes that Vanda vs. West-Ward was directed to a method of treating a disease, and the instant application does not do that! Instead, the instant application is directed to “a client relationship management system and method used in the financial services industry”.
In further response, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the “practical application” and “meaningful limits” arguments of the Applicant filed on 07/25/2024. Examiner notes that the Applicant has argued that the claims in the instant application --- “it improves the functioning of the existing technology and there are other ways of achieving the desired result (processing a risk determination)”, which Examiner notes is an abstract idea falling under “certain methods of organizing human activity” {with “risk determination” being a ‘fundamental economic principle or practice’) as noted above under 101 rejection --- Examiner respectfully disagrees. The introduction of a client relationship (computer) management system in financial services into the claims does not alter the analysis:
“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen[t]” an abstract idea “on … a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our §101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (alterations in original) (citations omitted).
“The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the §101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). Although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with 101 traversing arguments. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using the technology/computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea. Examiner notes that viewed as a whole, the claim limitations as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as “certain methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic principles or practices (to include mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (to include agreements in the form of contracts; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (to include following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or processor/s.
Examiner notes that under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere (computer) instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (as has been described by the instant claim limitations), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see at least MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner notes that the focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
Examiner notes that the processor limitations and the claim as a whole do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a server/device performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract.
Examiner submits that under the current 35 USC 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶ : “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete”. Indeed, in this in instant case, the limitations simply narrow or limit the abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC §101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, and listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SANJEEV MALHOTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during 8:30-17:00 hours, Monday-Friday on IFP Flexible schedule.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691