DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Claims on 06/03/2025. Claims
32-46 are pending. The effective filling date of the claimed invention is 05/21/2018.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 211.01(b) as follows:
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 13/661,989, filed 11/10/2011. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32, 36, 40 and 44-46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites “a bill payment dialogue” in lines 1-2 and lines 12-13. It is unclear if this is the same dialogue being referred to, or two different dialogues based on the unclear wording of the claims. Claims 36 and Claim 40 have the same issue, with reciting “bill payment dialogue” twice, without determining if they are the same or different
Claims 44-46 also recite “a bill payment dialogue” rendering the claims indefinite for the same reasons as above.
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:
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 display of at a bill payment dialogue for 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 32-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10,552,917 B1 Kunz et el. (hereinafter Kunz).
Regarding claim 32, Kunz discloses a computer-implemented method for launching a bill payment dialogue for a bill from a display of a plurality of bills, each bill having a corresponding due date (Kunz Col. 13, Lns. 4-18, computing devices include a memory and processor connected to a graphical user interface; Col. 3, Lns. 60-65, the information about bills can include selection of an element, including a dialog box; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment), the method comprising:
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 (Kunz Col. 30, Lns. 22-35, graphic user interface, with a timeline, and the timeline includes bill payment due dates; Fig. 4, graphical display, section 5 shows a horizontal timeline, section 8 includes rows of descriptive information about the bills, including date, identifying the payment, cash out and cash in; Fig. 7 adds additional details of the rows of bills shown for a specific date);
causing display of a due date indicator in each of the rows for bills and that is horizontally positioned to graphically represent the due date of the bill displayed, relative to the horizontal timelines and to horizontal positions of due date indicators for the bills in other rows (Kunz Fig. 12, shows a tighter view of the horizontal timeline; the exact date is selected/shown using the vertical line, the graph is then able to all of the bills due on the specific date; the date on the horizontal timeline is able to show all bills due that date for a plurality of different bill identifiers), wherein the rows share a timeline scale and timeline alignment (Kunz Fig. 12, each row with a specific bill is placed on the same timeline that is scaled and aligned; Fig. 4, the scale is show in the graph, and the dated match to align);
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 (Kunz Fig. 4, Section 8 showcases the expansion allowed based on the selectable date, see element 401 which is a collapse button and links to accounts; Col. 26, Lns. 36-46, expanding button);
and responsive to a user selection at least one of the link and the button, further causing display of a bill payment dialogue for the respective bill (Kunz Fig. 4, Section 8 showcases the expansion allowed based on the selectable date, see element 401 which is a collapse button and links to accounts; Col. 26, Lns. 43-59, expanding button with the option to change/alter information; Fig. 10, the ability each bill row to be edited; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment).
Regarding claim 33, Kunz discloses 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 (Kunz Col. 31, Lns. 3-10. The timeline may be color coded, for examples green may indicate available balance; Col. 33, Lns. 46-50, using different colors and shades of the same color to track conditions. Condition may include paid, unpaid, scheduled payment and their size, see Fig. 4, section 8 for the options of conditions).
Regarding claim 34, Kunz discloses 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 (Kunz Col. 9, Lns. 51-65, the user may select different dates, or with respect to a specific identifier, and additional detail may pop-up through drop down menu).
Regarding claim 35, Kunz discloses 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 (Kunz Fig. 20, the ability for a user to schedule payments; Fig. 19, the scheduled payment may be a recurring, payment meaning that they are paid periodically and may not have a current bill; Col. 16, Lns. 5-15, tracking including recurring transactions).
Regarding claim 36, Kunz discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media including computer instructions that, when loaded on hardware, cause the hardware to be configured to implement a method launching a bill payment dialogue for a bill from a display of a plurality of bills (Kunz Col. 13, Lns. 4-18, computing devices include a memory and processor connected to a graphical user interface; Col. 3, Lns. 60-65, the information about bills can include selection of an element, including a dialog box; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment), each bill having a corresponding due date, the method comprising:
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 (Kunz Col. 30, Lns. 22-35, graphic user interface, with a timeline, and the timeline includes bill payment due dates; Fig. 4, graphical display, section 5 shows a horizontal timeline, section 8 includes rows of descriptive information about the bills, including date, identifying the payment, cash out and cash in; Fig. 7 adds additional details of the rows of bills shown for a specific date);
causing display of due date indicator in each of the rows for bills and that is horizontally positioned to graphically represent the due date of the bills displayed relative to the horizontal timeline and to horizontal positions of due dates indicators for the bills on other rows (Kunz Fig. 12, shows a tighter view of the horizontal timeline; the exact date is selected/shown using the vertical line, the graph is then able to all of the bills due on the specific date; the date on the horizontal timeline is able to show all bills due that date for a plurality of different bill identifiers), wherein the rows share a timeline scale and timeline alignment (Kunz Fig. 12, each row with a specific bill is placed on the same timeline that is scaled and aligned; Fig. 4, the scale is show in the graph, and the dated match to align);
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 (Kunz Fig. 4, Section 8 showcases the expansion allowed based on the selectable date, see element 401 which is a collapse button and links to accounts; Col. 26, Lns. 36-46, expanding button);
and responsive to a user selecting at least one of the link and the button, further causing display of a bill payment dialogue for the respective bill (Kunz Fig. 4, Section 8 showcases the expansion allowed based on the selectable date, see element 401 which is a collapse button and links to accounts; Col. 26, Lns. 43-59, expanding button with the option to change/alter information; Fig. 10, the ability each bill row to be edited; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment).
Regarding claim 37, Kunz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 36, further causing the hardware to be configured to assign 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 (Kunz Col. 31, Lns. 3-10. The timeline may be color coded, for examples green may indicate available balance; Col. 33, Lns. 46-50, using different colors and shades of the same color to track conditions. Condition may include paid, unpaid, scheduled payment and their size, see Fig. 4, section 8 for the options of conditions).
Regarding claim 38, Kunz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 36, further causing the hardware to be configured to, responsive to receiving a user request and responsively cause display of a billing history for a selected account (Kunz Col. 9, Lns. 51-65, the user may select different dates, or with respect to a specific identifier, and additional detail may pop-up through drop down menu).
Regarding claim 39, Kunz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 27, further causing the hardware to be configured to, 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 (Kunz Fig. 20, the ability for a user to schedule payments; Fig. 19, the scheduled payment may be a recurring, payment meaning that they are paid periodically and may not have a current bill; Col. 16, Lns. 5-15, tracking including recurring transactions).
Regarding claim 40, Kunz teaches a computer system including a processor coupled to a memory (Kunz Col. 13, Lns. 4-18, computing devices include a memory and processor connected to a graphical user interface), wherein the memory is impressed with instructions that, when executed on the processor, implement actions launching a bill payment dialogue for a bill from a display of a plurality of bills (Kunz Abstract, graphical user interface to display bills; Col. 30, Lns. 26-35, visualization of bill payment due dates; Col. 3, Lns. 60-65, the information about bills can include selection of an element, including a dialog box; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment), each bill having a corresponding due date, the actions comprising:
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 (Kunz Col. 30, Lns. 22-35, graphic user interface, with a timeline, and the timeline includes bill payment due dates; Fig. 4, graphical display, section 5 shows a horizontal timeline, section 8 includes rows of descriptive information about the bills, including date, identifying the payment, cash out and cash in; Fig. 7 adds additional details of the rows of bills shown for a specific date);
causing display of a due date indicator in each of the rows for bills and that is horizontally positioned to graphically represent the due date of the bills displayed, relative to the horizontal timeline and to horizontal positions of due date indicators for the bills in other rows (Kunz Fig. 12, shows a tighter view of the horizontal timeline; the exact date is selected/shown using the vertical line, the graph is then able to all of the bills due on the specific date; the date on the horizontal timeline is able to show all bills due that date for a plurality of different bill identifiers), wherein the rows share a timeline scale and timeline alignment (Kunz Fig. 12, each row with a specific bill is placed on the same timeline that is scaled and aligned; Fig. 4, the scale is show in the graph, and the dated match to align);
further causing display, for a plurality of the bills, of controls items comprising at least one of a link and a button linked to respective bills (Kunz Fig. 4, Section 8 showcases the expansion allowed based on the selectable date, see element 401 which is a collapse button and links to accounts; Col. 26, Lns. 36-46, expanding button); and
responsive to a user selecting at least one of the link and the button, further causing display a bill payment dialogue for the respective bill (Kunz Fig. 4, Section 8 showcases the expansion allowed based on the selectable date, see element 401 which is a collapse button and links to accounts; Col. 26, Lns. 43-59, expanding button with the option to change/alter information; Fig. 10, the ability each bill row to be edited; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment).
Regarding claim 41, Kunz teaches the system of claim 40, 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 (Kunz Col. 31, Lns. 3-10. The timeline may be color coded, for examples green may indicate available balance; Col. 33, Lns. 46-50, using different colors and shades of the same color to track conditions. Condition may include paid, unpaid, scheduled payment and their size, see Fig. 4, section 8 for the options of conditions).
Regarding claim 42, Kunz teaches the system of claim 40, further including, receiving a user request and responsively causing display of a billing history for a selected account (Kunz Col. 9, Lns. 51-65, the user may select different dates, or with respect to a specific identifier, and additional detail may pop-up through drop down menu).
Regarding claim 43, Kunz teaches the system of claim 40, 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 (Kunz Fig. 20, the ability for a user to schedule payments; Fig. 19, the scheduled payment may be a recurring, payment meaning that they are paid periodically and may not have a current bill; Col. 16, Lns. 5-15, tracking including recurring transactions).
Regarding claim 44, Kunz teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 32, wherein further causing display of a bill payment dialogue 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 (Kunz Col. 3, Lns. 60-65, the information about bills can include selection of an element, including a dialog box; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment; Col. 35, Lns. 1-10, selectable hyperlinks attached to each bill; Col. 38, Lns. 5-21, hyperlink for payee to complete the transaction).
Regarding claim 45, Kunz teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 36, wherein further causing display of a bill payment dialogue 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 (Kunz Col. 3, Lns. 60-65, the information about bills can include selection of an element, including a dialog box; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment; Col. 35, Lns. 1-10, selectable hyperlinks attached to each bill; Col. 38, Lns. 5-21, hyperlink for payee to complete the transaction).
Regarding claim 46, Kunz teaches the system of claim 40, wherein further causing display of a bill payment dialogue 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 (Kunz Col. 3, Lns. 60-65, the information about bills can include selection of an element, including a dialog box; Col. 18, Lns. 26-34, dialog box to schedule or confirm payment; Col. 35, Lns. 1-10, selectable hyperlinks attached to each bill; Col. 38, Lns. 5-21, hyperlink for payee to complete the transaction).
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, 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:
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 ide4ntifiers for vendors, category, clients; Fig. 10A);
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 display of a bill payment dialog for 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. 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, 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, 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, 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 36, Miller teaches a non-transitory computer-readable media including computer instructions that, when loaded on hardware, cause the hardware to be configured to implement a method launching a bill payment dialog for a bill from a display of a plurality of bills (Miller [0012; [0054]; [0097]), each bill having a corresponding due date, the method comprising:
causing display of the plurality of bills on a graphic user interface including horizontal timelines, rows for bills and an account identifier for each bill in the plurality of bills (Miller [0065-0067]; [0099]; Fig. 10A);
causing display of a due date indicator in each of the rows for bills and that is horizontally positioned to graphically represent the due date of the bill displayed, relative to a respective 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 (Miller [0097]; Fig. 10A);
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]; Fig. 10A, 11A); and
responsive to a user selecting at least one of the link and the button, further causing, display of a bill payment dialog for the respective bill (Miller [0065-0067]; 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. 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 37, Miller teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 36, further causing the hardware to be configured to assign 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]; [0127]; Fig. 10A, 11A-B).
Regarding claim 38, Miller teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 36, further causing the hardware to be configured to, responsive to receiving a user request and responsively cause display of a billing history for a selected account (Miller [0106]; [0118]; Fig. 10A, 11A, 11B).
Regarding claim 39, Miller teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 37, further causing the hardware to be configured to, 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).
Regarding claim 40, Miller teaches a computer system including a processor coupled to a memory, wherein the memory is impressed with instructions that, when executed on the processor, implement actions launching a bill payment dialog for a bill from a display of a plurality of bills (Miller [0012]; [0054]; 0097]), each bill having a corresponding due date, the actions comprising:
causing display of the plurality of bills on a graphic user interface including horizontal timelines, rows for bills and an account identifier for each bill in the plurality of bills (Miller [0065-0067; [0099]; Fig. 10A);
causing display of a due date indicator in each of the rows for bills and that is horizontally positioned to graphically represent the due date of the bill displayed, relative to a respective 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 (Miller [0097]; Fig. 10A);
further causing display, for a plurality of the bills, of controls items comprising at least one of a link and a button linked to respective bills (Miller [0065-0067; Fig. 10A, 11A); and
responsive to a user selecting at least one of the link and the button, further causing display a bill payment dialog for the respective bill (Miller [0065-0067; 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. 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 41, Miller teaches the system of claim 40, 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]; [0127]; Fig. 10A, 11A-B).
Regarding claim 42, Miller teaches the system of claim 40, further including, receiving a user request and responsively causing display of a billing history for a selected account (Miller [0106]; [0118]; Fig. 10A, 11A, 11B).
Regarding claim 43, Miller teaches the system of claim 40, 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]).
Regarding claim 44, Miller teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 32, wherein further causing display of a 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).
Regarding claim 45, Miller teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 36, wherein further causing display of a 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).
Regarding claim 46, Miller teaches the system of claim 40, wherein further causing display of a 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 06/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Priority, Examiner believes based under MPEP 211 that the priority back to 2011 has not been met. This is why the Kunz reference has been maintained. In an alternative, if the Examiner understanding is incorrect, there is also a new rejection under 103 using prior art Miller to reject the claims on a different basis with an earlier priority date of 2008.
Regarding 112(b), the claims have been amended and the 112(b) has been removed.
Regarding 101
Examiner considers all information presented in the file wrapper, while Examiner directly responded to the argument presented by applicant, and did not directly respond to every argument presented to the TQAS and Director in a separate interview, or the Examiner interview, which took place with the Examiner, and the Examiner explained in that interview her opinions, and therefore did not repeat what was stated in the Interview Summary.
Technical Solution Found in Independent Claims 32, 36, and 40-Exxaminer Disagrees with Applicants interpretation
When Core Wireless is cited by Applicant, the limitations “the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application” is being used to mean that the any interface with selectable link to launch applications should be allowable. However, each individual application needs to be analyzed with respect to its own specification and exact claim limitations. When Core Wireless displays unlaunched applications, with a certain amount of data, that then is selectable to launch an additional application, it is showcasing that there are two different states that the computer operates in, and within the specification there are technical details about how the amount of data in the unlaunched states is less the previously showcased within the computer technology, and that this is different and an improvement to how computer previously functions. This is distinct from the instant claims, which launches a dialogue, then displays information, and causes display of additional information because the claim and the specification fails to provide any technical means for accomplishing these steps. The claims and specification use the words causing display and launching, but provide no technical solution, only generic words to describe what they wish to accomplish on a GUI. Finally, the displayed information is not described as being in any necessary state, it continues to provide the display of information. The claims are distinct because the limitation does not provide an improved user interface that would be an improvement to prior systems, it merely describes a different means of displaying information, a visual improvement. A visual improvement, that is no different from how prior systems would access information, the amount of information or a state in which the information is displayed does not provide an improved user interface, and is not more than the abstract idea.
Examiner believes that the TQAs remark specially points to explain how the instant application has a technical problem, and a technical solution, which is based on the MPEP 2106.05(a) guidelines for integration into a practical application. Examiner believes Applicant is severely misunderstanding the guidance given in Core Wireless, in that the improved user interface in Core Wireless was the technical solution, because the way in which it was formatted changed the way the technology was implemented, and therefore solved a technical problem. Applicant continues to argue that the design of the GUI is the technical solution, but that does not alter how the computer functions, and it also does not present a technical problem. The problem is how the information is summarized and presented, which is a visual problem, a business problem, NOT a technical problem. As recited on page 14 Core Wireless was an improvement because it “allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions ‘without actually opening the application up’” which reduces the amount of paging through screens. In comparison, the instant application has a button, that allows the opening up of a website to pay for a bill, even if all bills are presented on one page, with multiple buttons to go to a direct webpage, this is not condensing the payment pages or changing how website work by going through less steps.
MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(x) is referenced as an examples of an improved interface that showcases improved computer functionality. Under Core Wireless, the courts held that an improved user interface for computing devices may be more than the abstract idea of an index, but the reasoning the claims are not abstract is more than simply stating that they use an improved user interface. In fact, the courts found three distinct improvements that is more than generic idea of summarizing information. The first, specifying a particular manner to access the summary window. Second, the claim window limits the set of data being displayed. Third, the claim recites that the device exits in a particular state. The combination of the limitations is able to disclose a specific manner of displaying information, not conventional user interface, improving the system. When the instant claims state that the method launches a bill payment dialogue for a bill, and the specification does not indicate a particular manner in which the dialogue operates, how the launching alters date being processed, or how the stat of the device itself would be altered in a manner different than ordinarily using a dialogue box on a computer, then the claims are not showcasing how the launching of a dialogue is an improvement to the functionality of a computer.
Examiner can see that in the ‘508 provisional, the word task assistance is used, but using the same word throughout different application, without any technical details on how the action occurs, since stated that it helps “facilitate completion of action” does not give any concrete indication of what the application is accomplishing.
Response to Characterization of Claim 32 as “structuring a salesforce” or a “sales activity” Commercial Interaction-Examiner disagrees with Applicants analysis
Analysis of the whole claim and plain meaning of the claim language is addressed under MPEP 2106.04(II) asks, is the claim directed to…an abstract idea, and then proceeds to as whether the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception, and therefore, the entirety of the claim must be analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in light of the plain meaning and the specification is used to interpret the claim limitations. Examiner has pointed to the enumerated category of managing sales activities as the category which the claimed invention fits. The claim limitations launches a payment dialogue for bills, displays bills, and bills are the receipt for things that have been bought, and buying things is a set of activities accomplished with a business as part of sales activities. The claims do not specifically state the word “sale, sell or sold”, but the plain meaning of a bill is associated with the sale of goods/services. Additionally, the numerated grouping is specifically the management of sales activities, and therefore having an overview of the bill and their timeline due, would help manage when a user must pay for an item or service purchased (also known as sold to them). Examiner therefore stands by the plain meaning interpretation of a bill, which is a statement of charges for an amount of money owed for goods or services rendered (a sale). The use of a GUI to showcase the bills on a timeline continue to showcase management of sales activities, by providing how the bills are displayed. The GUI is to be analyzed as additional elements to determine if there is enough technical detail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but this is to be done under Step 2A, Prong two.
Response to Citations of Cases- All 12
In re Ferguson was presented as showcasing examples in the MPEP 2106.04 what constitutes a sales force.
BSG showcases how technical elements can be used to present information, much like a GUI presents information, and is therefore analogous.
Voter Verified, describes how using an electronic element can be a tool to perform instructions and complete tasks normally assigned to people, and therefore is used to demonstrate the notion that tools can be used to perform steps people normally perform.
Ultramercial is about advertisement, but as stated by applicant, also involves the payment using a computer element.
Trading Technologies v. CQG was specifically cited as being eligible because the claimed process used a specific rules to improve the functioning of technology, not just that there was an interaction between user and interface. The instant claims display a button, and then open a new webpage to display when the button is selected, which is not changing the functionality of a computer.
IBM v Zillow, and Weisner, Examiner cites to multiple other cases in the MPEP which is controlling, and is merely showcasing all technology available for Applicant to review.
Electrical Power Group, The lack of a GUI does not disqualify from teaching that data analysis can be performed, when the GUI is recited in general terms.
In re Killian, This is focused on searching for information, the information in Killian is about insurance, compared to billing information n the instant claims.
Intellectual Ventures, the generic nature of the XML is similar to the generic nature of the GUI in the instant claims,
Credit Acceptance, showcases how a relationship between a person (user) with technology does not automatically make the claim eligible.
DDR Holdings, this is recited to showcase what would be necessary to make the claims patent eligible, as in DDR the standard hyperlink is modified from h e conventional way it interacts, and therefore Examiner was showcases that hyperlink MAY be used in an unconventional manner to make the claim eligible, but this is missing from the instant claims.
The purpose of citing to specific cases found within the MPEP is not to discuss the merits of the case, as Examiner is not a lawyer, but merely to point to where the USPTO has found art to be eligible compared to ineligible to give insight into how previous cases have been decided.
Additionally, it would be impossible for a case to have an exact set of facts to provide an exact replica of the instant claims to showcase the ineligibility under 101, but they are more used for example of the type of art shown to be ineligible. To be relevant, the MPEP does not have 25 different GUI references, but show examples of how the specific sections have previously been decided based on the functions being performed in those cases.
Therefore, the MPEP 2106.05 relevant cases cited continues to showcase how an improved computer interface may be considered more than an abstract idea, but they do not read on the current invention. The fixing of a business problem is considered an abstract idea, part of commercial activities (managing sales activities), and no limitations for improving the functionality of a computer would make it more than the abstract idea.
Non-functional descriptive material, Examiner would note that the amended claim limitations include what is being displayed, and according to MPEP 2111.05, if a limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information, and there must be a determination that the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate. Examiner believes the answer to this question is no, the information displayed, such as horizontal timeline and indicators location/position, there is not a functional relationship between the method of displaying the information and information itself. The measuring cup lines function to serve an indication of the volume, which is the purpose of a measuring cup. The visual due date indicators function as visual indicators for due dates of bills, but they are not connected with any performance of the method. The payment of bills is not activated by the dis[play, it is simply to cause the display of information, and therefore provides no relationship from between the information displayed and act of displaying information. The limitation is directed to the conveyance of a message, and provides no functional limitation. The buttons/links provide function, in that it is a visual cue that it may implement a function.
Regarding 102, Examiner still believes the Kunz reference is available as prior art, and the reasoning remains the same.
Regarding 103, If Examiner is wrong about the priority date, then the 2008 reference of Miller combined with the MPEP reasoning also rejects the claimed invention.
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).
Conclusion
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