DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Claims on 04/01/2026. Claims
32-46 are pending. The effective filling date of the claimed invention is 11/10/2011.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 32-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 32-35 and 44 are directed to a computer implemented method, which is a process that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 36-39 and 45 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media, which is an article of manufacture that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 40-43 and 46 are directed to a computer system, which is a machine that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Accordingly, claims 32-46 satisfy step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1- The independent claims 32, 36 and 40 recite the abstract idea of: launching a bill payment dialogue1 for a bill from a display of a plurality of bills, each bill having a corresponding due date (the action of paying a bill is a business practice to complete sales activities, grouped as a commercial interaction, and grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity. See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) i. structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009); the fact that the customer may interact with a computer does not make the limitation not fall under one of the sub-groupings of a certain method of organizing human activity, see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping; as for the inputting with the dialog, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) managing personal behavior - ii. considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018 and An example of a claim reciting social activities is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed “[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of” presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation”, which is a “fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy” and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.)) , the method comprising:
Before launching the bill payment dialog for a respective bill, causing display of the plurality of bills on a graphic user interface including a horizontal timeline, rows for bills and an account identifier for each bill in the plurality of bills (the display of billing information, is part of how a customer would need to identify bills to be paid, and is therefore a sales activity, part of the commercial interaction, and the higher grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity. See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) i. structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); causing display of a due date indicator in each of the rows for the bills and that is horizontally positioned to graphically represent the due date of the bill displayed, relative to the horizontal timeline and to horizontal positions of due date indicators for the bills in other rows, wherein the rows share a timeline scale and timeline alignment (the display of billing information, particularly due dates, is a sales activity, part of the commercial interaction, and the higher grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity. See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) An example of a claim reciting advertising is found in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, which the court described as "using advertising as an exchange or currency." Id.; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) Other examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include: vii. placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019));
PNG
media_image1.png
304
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
further causing display, for a plurality of the bills, of controls comprising at least one of a link and a button linked to respective bills (see e.g. IBM v. Zillow, No 2021-2350 (Fed. Cir. 10/17/2022) at issue was U.S. Patent No. 9,158,789, which describes a method for "coordinated geospatial, list-based and filter-based selection." '789 patent, at title. A user draws a shape on a map to select that area of the map, and the claimed system then filters and displays data limited to that area of the map. It synchronizes which elements are shown as "selected" on the map and its associated list, where the system displays a map to a user and various selections/controls such as allowing the user to draw a shape around an area on the displayed map and then the system filters and displays the data from within that area of the map. . . . Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing. "Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a `humanly comprehensible' amount of information useful for users . . . —by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We have repeatedly held claims "directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner" to be abstract. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (describing cases). The claims here recite similarly abstract steps: presenting a map, having a user select a portion of that map, and then synchronizing the map and its corresponding list to display a more limited data set to the user. Using a computer to "concurrently update" the map and the list may speed up the process, but "mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017). ); and
responsive to a user selecting at least one of the link and the button, further causing launching of the bill payment dialog for the respective bill and initiating of payment of the respective bill (see e.g. IBM case above, where the user makes the selection from the map by drawing the shape, and then the filtered data relating to that selection is presented to the user, as shown in the pasted Fig. 5 from the opinion above. See the right hand side of the figure, where the dialog of the selection is displayed to user).
Fundamental economic practices are described under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Fundamental is being used to describe an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, also known as a building block of modern economy. The instant invention claims the display of bill information, including details of the individual bills. The user’s ability to manage all bills due on a month-to-month basis is part of users. The concept of paying, reviewing and tracking bills has long been at the heart of every economy, in so far that the paying of bills is part of transactions. One of the non-limiting examples is processing payments for remotely purchased goods, and the management of bills and their payment information is a log of that payment information for purchased goods. Therefore, the claims fall within the enumerated grouping of a fundamental economic practices.
Commercial or Legal Interactions are described under MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)(B). A variety sub-categories are also described including contracts, legal obligations, sales activities and business relations. The most relevant would be business relations, which is when there is a platform for a relationship between the user of the application and the bills which they need to pay. The claims enable multiple businesses to have their own timeline and row, and allows the user to analyze their relationship between the business and the user (customer), and is therefore the claimed subject matter is a commercial interaction that is a business relation.
Accordingly, when these abstract idea limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner makes the finding that independent claims 32, 36, and 40 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2- Claims 32, 36, and 40 do not integrate the identified abstract idea with practical application. To be clear, the additional elements found in independent claims 32, 36 and 40 include: a graphical user interface that displays data, a dialog, a link, a button, non-transitory computer-readable media, hardware, computer system, processor, and memory.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because exemplary claim 32 fails to distinguish the abstract idea by not providing limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The analysis may be based on more than one type of consideration found within MPEP 2106.05(a-f). Two specific considerations are specifically identified, MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f). MPEP 2106.05(a) considers whether the claim purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself. The difference between when a claim shows improvements compared to those that are insufficient relies heavily on whether the claim actually improves the computer capabilities, or merely invokes computers as a tool. A non-limiting example of an improved user interface that was patent eligible included claim limitations which included details of a particular manner in which the information was accessed and limiting the set of data to be accessed. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Additionally, the claim specifies the particular state of the computer in order to give additional details of the technical matter of the claim language, beyond that of using conventional user interface methods. The combination of a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user.
Trading Technologies is markedly different from the instant claims. The claim language states the method launching a dialogue for a bill, and the information about how the bills are displayed are simply stating the visual aspect of the display, it does not add limitation that would limit the amount of data, how to access the data or the state in which the computer may access the data. The launching of a dialogue to pay bills is distinct from the technical improvement found in Core Wireless, in that the instant application recites the launching of a dialogue as a tool to pay bills, compared to Core Wireless, which used the unlaunched and launched states to complete two different technical functions, and the specification of Core Wireless was able to showcase the technical problem associated with a full launch, and how the half launch was able to overcome this technical problem. See MPEP 2016.05(a)(I) x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant application is silent on how the launching would be a technical improvement, and the claim language merely recites that the method launches a dialogue, indicating it is being used to perform the abstract idea of sales activities.
The link and button are the functional elements of the claimed invention, and are stated in terms of outcome specific language. The user selects the link and button, and it causes further display of a bill payment dialogue. This closely resembles the non-limiting examples found as being insufficient. The “improvement” to the computer may be visual, but this does not indicate the functioning of a computer is improved. The ability to arrange information on a GUI to improve efficiency for the user does not improve the way the actual computer operates. The claimed invention does not include any language to showcase how the information is manipulated to make the display of the information improved, wither by how the information is sent, received, or interconnected. Therefore, the independent claims are not directed to improving the functioning of a computer. See also IBM v. Zillow (referred to above), where the ability to interact with a GUI, by it through a link, button, drawing on the screen to filter data or any other standard form of interaction with a GUI, is not an improvement to the underlying computer functionality.
The computer-readable medium, memory, hardware and processor are also additional computer elements claimed in independent claims. MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine and MPEP 2106.05(f), mere application, address these additional computer elements. The elements are claimed as hardware, processor, computer and do not provide a machine arranged in a particular way to optimize speed, or provide the elements as more than a means to implement the abstract idea. This is indicated by the additional elements found primarily in the preamble, in which they are identified and comprising the method, which described what is being displayed, with no information on how the computer elements would be altered by the method described within the claims. Therefore, there is no particular machine or more than mere application on a computer element.
Step 2B-The graphical user interface that displays data, a dialog, a link, a button, non-transitory computer-readable media, hardware, computer system, processor, and memory are all additional elements used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and fail to provide technical improvement to the functionality of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(a)). See detailed citations above. Therefore, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The examiner notes that the claimed “a link and a button linked to respective bills” is simply correlating data and is found to be abstract idea. The examiner notes that the inclusion of a link and button linked to other data is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer. See MPEP 2106.05(A) i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)). In the present claims, there is nothing relating to any modification to a conventional linkage of data, but simply using the link and button as tools to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims - Dependent claims 33, 37 and 41 include the assignment of colors of the graph based on conditions. Assigning colors for easier identification of bills is a user decision to make the management of their bills easier, which is an action taken to manage sales activities, and is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity. The specific colors used to display is a way to visual change the graph, but this does not alter the functioning of a computer, and therefore does not integrate the claim into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Dependent claims 34, 38 and 42 includes a user request to cause display. A user interacting with a bill payment display is another way for a user to pay bills, which is a sales activity, grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity. A user interaction, that is claimed in an outcome specific language, such as request and response, without how the functioning of the computer would be improved by the request. It therefore does not provide integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 35, 39 and 43 includes displaying anticipated bills. A display of bills is another way for a user to identify bills to be paid, which is a sales activity, grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity. The type of information being displayed does not provide a step that would improve the functioning of a computer, since it does not alter the way in which information is being transferred, the limitation fails to integrate the claims into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Dependent claims 44-46 includes “selection of a launch icon adjacent to a name of a billing entity, taking the user to a website for payment of the billing entity’s bill”. Selecting a launch icon to be sent to a website is another way for a user to select bills to be paid, which is a sales activity, grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity. The use of icons to hyperlink to website is currently practice in the field and does not provide a step that would improve the functioning of a computer, since it does not alter the way in which information is being transferred, the limitation fails to integrate the claims into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 32-46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/0249936 A1 Miller et el. (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 32, 36 and 40, Miller teaches a computer-implemented method for launching a bill payment dialog for a bill from a display of a plurality of bills, each bill having a corresponding due date (Miller [0012; 0097), the method comprising:
before launching the bill payment dialog for a respective bill, causing display of the plurality of bills on a graphic user interface including timelines, rows for bills and an account identifier for each bill in the plurality of bills (Miller [0065-0067] display of bill timeline; [0099] bills comprise identifiers for vendors, category, clients; Fig. 10A; the user may view of timeline for payment before launching the payment dialog);
causing display of a due date indicator in each of the rows for bills and that is positioned to graphically represent the due date of the bill displayed, relative to a respective timeline and to positions of due date indicators for the bills in other rows, wherein the rows share a timeline scale and timeline alignment (Miller [0097] due date is one of the used data points; Fig.10A, first two columns list the due date for the respective row, column 1 visually indicates the month by a number, and the followed by column 2, the day within the month, therefore the rows may be compared visually and quickly and the table is able to visually display the order, and the due dates are positioned in order, in a singular line);
further causing display, for a plurality of the bills, of controls comprising at least one of a link and a button linked to respective bills (Miller [0065-0067] the system includes client pages, and the client console may include options to select items using buttons, sliders hypertext links; Fig. 10A, 11A); and
responsive to a user selecting at least one of the link and the button, further causing launching of the bill payment dialog for the respective bill and initiating of payment of the respective bill (Miller [0065-0067] the system includes client pages, and the client console may include options to selects items using buttons, sliders hypertext links, and when more information is requested to be displayed by the user, and may use any format (buttons, drop down menus) to display information; Fig. 10A, 11A).
Miller fails to explicitly disclose a horizonal timeline. Under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) the rearrangement of parts has determined that the particular placement of an element was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. Additionally, MPEP 2144.04(I) recites that matters relating to ornamentation with no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentable distinguish the claimed invention from prior art, and the timelines being vertical or horizontal does not improve mechanical functionality of the payment of bills. The use of legal precedent showcases that the prior art of Miller teaches a vertical timeline, and the choice to make the timeline horizontal is merely a design choice. The criticality of showcasing the due dates in order is taught in Miller, and the way it is displayed is not more than a choice.
Regarding claim 33, 37, and 41, Miller teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 32, further including assigning a color to one of a segment of the horizontal timeline and the due date indicator for the respective bill, based on a condition selected from a set comprising: paid, unpaid, size of payment, and autopay (Miller [0070] the records of each payment are present in the display; Fig. 10A, 11A-B, there is a symbol used, a check mark or cross to indicate payment; [0127] payments are analyzed and given a colored rating for distinction).
Regarding claim 34, 38, and 42, Miller teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 32, further including, receiving a user request and responsively causing display of a billing history for a selected account (Miller [0106] the history may be analyzed to determine past payments; [0118] the system may be accessed by the client and may be used to manage payments, and display history of bills; Fig. 10A, 11A, 11B).
Regarding claim 35, 39 and 43, Miller teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 32, in addition to causing display of the plurality of bills, causing display of rows and due date indicators that include a plurality of anticipated bills in accounts that were paid periodically in prior periods, for which no current bill has been registered (Miller [0062] the client database may include previous payments and use that information to extrapolate expected future payments, as well as the expected future payment date, which would create a profile).
Regarding claim 44-46, Miller teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 32, wherein further causing display of the bill payment dialog for the respective bill includes, responsive to selection of a launch icon adjacent to a name of a billing entity, taking the user to a web site for payment of the billing entity's bill (Miller [0066] hypertext link can send to screen, webpage or page, which are terms used interchangeably to describe where a user is sent).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Priority, Examiner acknowledges the ADS with the relevant priority date.
Regarding 112(b), the claims have been amended and the 112(b) has been removed.
Regarding 101
Direct Application of Core Wireless: GUIs Compared
Applicant points to the similarities in the images of Core Wireless dialog payment with the instant application figures of the payment. Core Wireless Figs. 1-3 showcase a button, that upon selection with expand the information within the app, compared to the instant application, that when the task assist button is selected, it then launches payment apps, which is an outside computer element. They are comparable, in that selection of a button opens up something new, however, they are distinct, in the technology behind opening the new application versus further parsing information within the same application. Applicant asserts that this is an improved graphical user interface since it allows quick access to stored data and programs. Examiner notes that the reasoning the Core Wireless GUI was determined to be patent eligible is not simply because of the presence of a GUI, but rather that the claims contain precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it, and is an improvement to conventional user interfaces. The instant application improvement is recited as pertaining to sending users to different applications. However, this is how typical dialog buttons work, in that the selection of the button sends the user to a different application to perform the payment. Applicant asserts that the launching of the instant claim prevents a user from needing to re-enter information to pay bills, however, the claim limitation recites “initiating of payment of the respective bill”, which provides no technical details that would indicate transfer of information to a different application, and therefore, is not an improved GUI.
Direct Application of Core Wireless: Claim Language Compared
Core Wireless was found to be patent eligible because of the claim limitations relating to the improved display, this includes the application summary being reached from a menu, and that summary includes limited list of data, and each data is selectable to launch respective application to enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application. The instant claims recites a display of billing information, and that there is a dialog box to launch payment of the bill. However, the instant claim does not indicate how this is an improvement to regular GUIs. Core Wireless specifically points in their specification that the improvement is specific to those using small screen devices, in that to scroll and switch views makes functionality difficult, and therefore the limitation of the data on the screen improves the efficiency. Compared to the language of the claims, and arguments asserted by the Applicant, the instant claim improvement is a limited amount of specific information being displayed and controlling the launch of respective apps, which Examiner sees that the display does include specific information displayed, and that there is a launch button, but there is no indication as to reducing he information to have a better user experience with the Gui, or that the launch would enable selected data to be sent to the additional application, as the instant claims recites “initiating pf payment”.
Direct Application of Core Wireless: Advantages Compared
Applicant recites that the “task assist” has a special meaning, and that the improvement is the saving of a user from retyping or copying information from a summary screen into a newly launched dialog box. However, the Specification of he instant application when discussing the user interface describes how the visual summary of the bills is the improvement to the user interface. This is where Examiner notes that the improvement, even described within the specification, is not to the functionality, but rather that visually is it easier to look at multiple bills. Without any technical improvements, the claim fails to integrate the judicial exception (a business method of paying bills), into a practical application.
Direct Application of Core Wireless: Overall
The Applicant highlights the launching of a respective application, but failed to include that the electronic device first displays a summary of the unlaunched applications, and this reduces the amount of data needed for such a small device. Core Wireless was found to be patent eligible because of its improvements to the functionality of a computer because of how the GUI interacts with different applications, and specifically how the reduced data is linked. The instant claim summarizes information, and includes a launch button, but does not provide technical details to describe how the summary of information is something more than visually more appealing.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Applicant recites the Kim 101 Memo, which is to distinguish the difference between reciting an exception, and involving an exception. Examiner notes that there is a distinction, in that when a claim involves an abstract idea, there may be an abstract idea present, such as a commercial interaction, but there are also other elements that show the claim is more than that abstract idea, and that the invention is simply involving an abstract idea. On the counter, when a claim recites an abstract idea, it is the sole focus of the claim. In the instant claims, there are multiple elements, but each of the elements recites an abstract idea, which involves the exchange of information, displaying information, analyzing business relations by linking user to payments, and there is not anything in the claim that would showcase a transformation beyond the abstract idea, as those additional elements are found to be tool to perform the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not improve the functionality of a computer under MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant recites that there is not any case or example that does not consider an application launcher patent eligible. Examiner would continue to point that Example provided by the USPTO are not exclusive, and are meant to exemplary only. Therefore, the entirety of the claim recites that act of paying bills, which is a commercial interactions, and does not merely involve the abstract idea on some other context.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Examiner is not ignoring the elements of the claimed invention as it related to Step 2A, Prong Two, but Examiner is looking specifically the additional elements, as they are related to the abstract idea elements, to see if those abstract idea elements are integrated into the additional elements to showcase the integration into a practical application. This is why examiner is looking at how the graphical user interface is connected to the payment of bills, which showcases that it is used to cause display of the bills, and therefore, as a combination, is the display of information on a GUI integrated into a practical application or more than the abstract idea of displaying information. Under MPEP 2106.05(f), as previously recited by the Examiner, is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of displaying information. This is also continued in the examination of the other additional elements reviewed, as the dialog, link, button are presented as outcome to an action, as MPEP 2106.05(f), when the claim is described in solution, without context to the technical approach, there is not integration into a practical application. Finally, as recited in the 101 rejection, the computer-readable medium, memory, hardware and processor are recited as a computer containing a memory and processor, which is generally how a computer is set up, and that the processor executes the abstract idea. Therefore, when Examiner states in the previous rejections that the additional elements are tools to perform an abstract idea, or that the additional elements are not technically improved by the application of the abstract idea, Examiner is establishing that the claim limitations evaluated together with the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant also continues to recite Core Wireless as a GUI that is patent eligible, but Examiner would point to the thorough evaluation of why the instant application is distinct from those claims of Core Wireless. Examiner notes the assertion that Applicant states the instant claims have a practical application by improving GUI by summarizing and presenting information, but Examiner continues to states that the presentation of information on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
This step under MPEP 2106.05 as “search for inventive concept”. But the MPEP also very specifically calls out that the inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.
“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)”
Therefore, the arguments presented by the Applicant about the application of prior art is not relevant to determining if there is significantly more. Rather, Examiner applied the known ways in which the claim limitations can be significantly more, and focused primarily on how there may be an improvement to the functionality of a computer, which the claims and specification do not indicate, or the additional elements are provided as more than a tool to perform the abstract idea, which again, the claim and specifications of the instant application do not recite.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Launching Bill Payment Dialog: The exact claim language is not needed to be shown as teaching the claim limitations. When the instant claim “launches” a bill payment dialog, that is all that is stated in the instant claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, whyc can this not include the opening of a bill, for a user to then write a check and pay it, the bill would provide the user the information necessary to make a bill payment. Additionally, in Miller, the screens include the ability to input information into fields, which is a dialog box. Therefore, when Miller [0065-0067] selects a “link” to open a different application, which can include a form to “receive input data”, it teaches launching a payment dialog.
Horizontal Timelines: Examiner noted that Miller does not teach a horizontal timelines, and that this is a visual choice that does not change an application that can display information, and respond to user selections.
MPEP Citation: The MPEP 2144 showcases ways in which obviousness, when not directly supported by the prior art, such as a timeline being on a horizontal position compared to a vertical positions, was not demonstrated to be a critical to the function of the payment of bills.
Links or Buttons Next to Respective Bills: Examiner recited Fig. 10A, and 11A to showcase that a link and button can be presented within the client user interface, and further included citations to Miller [0065-0067] that the client device can also include he ability to link to a screen or web page that receives input information. Therefore, the entirety of Miller showcases that there are links within the user interface, and that those links may include a screen for user input (dialog).
Responsively Launching a Bill Payment Dialog and Initiating Bill Payment: As previously described, Miller [0065] discusses linking to outside programs, which is compared to the word “launch”. And Miller [0066] describes the opening of a screen to receive input data, which is compared to the payment dialog.
Conclusion regarding Miller: Miller is able to teach summarizing bill information, as shown in the Fig. 10A, and the ability to include a link, which can also be a screen to input data [0065-0067], such as payment information. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under Miller.
The Dependent claims do no now rely on allowable claims, and therefore remain rejected.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,295,358 B1 Komarevtsev et al teaches presenting bills in a timeline (Abstract) and US 10,402,910 B1 Kunz et al teaches managing cash flows with visual representation on a graphical user interface (Abstract); US 2014/0171017 A1 Menezes et al. teaches creating graphs using real-time bills (Abstract); US 6,578,015 B1 teaches paying a singular bill online (Haseltine Abstract); US 7,958,049 B2 teaches paying bills electronically, but fails to explicitly disclose the display timeline (Jamison Abstract) and US 6,519,571 B1 Guheen et al teaches managing the timeline of bill payments (Guheen Abstract); US 8,200,775 B2 Moore teaches management of business bills (Abstract); US 2008/0249936 A1 Miller et al. teaches bill management (Abstract); US 20060168347 A1 Martin teaches integration of hyperlinks with due dates (Abstract); US 10,552,917 B1 Kunz et el. teaches bill payment (Abstract); US 8,447,666 B1 Keld teachs viewing financial transaction data (Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 See Applicant’s originally-filed Specification at [0063], [0069] Figs. 8-10, and [0071] “The use of the term dialog in relation to FIGS. 8-10 refers to input mechanisms.” The examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification uses “dialog” and explicitly never uses “dialogue,” as claimed. The examiner has interpreted these as the same for purposes of examination, and accordingly has not made a rejection under 35 USC 112. For sake of clarity, the examiner urges Applicant to amend the claims to include “dialog” instead of “dialogue.”
Prosecution Insights