DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 1/23/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 7 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13 and 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
Ex parte Desjardins is directed to an invention containing the optimization of a machine learning model for multiple tasks, improving on the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” (See Dec. 5, 2025 Memo, …Desjardens). In Applicant’s invention, it is not clear the use of machine learning is present. Paragraphs 65 and 66 of the disclosure teach a system to flag outlier values, but does not teach the use of machine learning. This is seen as related to billing, or the judicial exception of fundamental economic activity rather than improvements in computing technology.
Enfish teaches a system for data storage and retrieval for a computer memory, which is directed to computing technology. Unlike Enfish, Applicant’s invention is directed to processing data from timekeeper devices using a computer embodiment that does not go beyond applying the processing to a computing environment. MPEP 2106.05(b)(II): “… in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly.”
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 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: a unique flat fee code generated by a local office system, the code including a pricing value, a location value, and at least one of a time range or a date range, attach the unique flat fee code to a matter code and enable allowed outputs associated with the matter code; change between final and interim bills, and associating the bill with the pricing value, generate a bill associated with the flat fee code and a client ID without any time entries having been associated with the bill and without triggering an end of month close out, the entries each including at least an associated description, quantity and net value and a plurality of allowed final outputs associated with the final bill; after issuance of the bill to a client corresponding to the client ID, receive a time entry from at least one timekeeper device of the plurality of timekeeper devices, the entry associated with the flat fee code and at least a timekeeper ID, the client ID, an hourly rate, a date and time, using the unique flat fee code, the timekeeper ID, the client ID, the hourly rate, the date and time as inputs, determine whether an input value is not in alignment with normal billing history, for the timekeeper ID or the client ID and output a corrected value, after issuance of the bill to the client corresponding to the client ID and at the end of month close out, use the corrected value to generate a billed total including the time multiplied by the hourly rate, after issuance of the bill to the client corresponding to the client ID and at the end of month close out, allocating a percentage of the billed total to the timekeeper ID for normalization or profit sharing based on the pricing value of the flat fee code. These limitations, as drafted, are directed to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions in the form of contracts, sales activities or behaviors.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a computer system; an application server with a processing device and non-transitory storage medium; downloading code into a non-local time entry system; receiving data from the system and from at least one timekeeper device of the plurality of timekeeper devices; a user terminal at the local office with a user interface with a change billing document mode enabling a user to change between final and interim bills and including a menu, and configured to (i) generate a summary window displaying a plurality of time entries upon the user change the mode to the final bill, the entries generated by the non-local time system; and (ii) generate the summary windows to display only the pricing value when the user changes the mode to the interim bill, the value generated by the local office system and associated with the flat fee code without display of any time entries, and a plurality of allowed interim outputs associated with the interim bill, and displaying the value upon the change from final bill to interim bill, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) By claiming the source of the data generation, the transmission of data from different systems, and narrowing the user interface to include a summary window, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality. The limitations are concerned more with displaying a particular set of data than improving the functionality of a computer, and the UI elements of a “change billing document mode”, a menu, a summary window, and dropdown menu options according to user selections as claimed are of a high level of generality. The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites allocating time and costs associated with the flat fee code to the corresponding timekeeper device. Data association is seen as part of the abstract idea. Claim 4 recites generating a bill reduction amount for a bill amount that exceeds a previously established billing arrangement that corresponds to the code, so the amount is the same or less than the previous arrangement. This billing practice is seen as part of the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites detecting data errors in time entry outside pre-selected value and detect data errors in a time and date range for task codes and activity codes of a matter ID. Data analysis is seen as part of the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites the flat fee code corresponding to any one of high volume single matter, medium volume single matter, or client specific. Data associations is seen as part of the abstract idea. Claim 7 is analyzed as claim 1. Claims 9, 10 and 12 are analyzed as claims 3, 4 and 6. Claim 13 recites the flat fee code includes a frequency value. Detailing the data included in the system is seen as part of the abstract idea. Claim 15 is analyzed as claim 13. For the reasons detailed in this rejection, the claims are not patent eligible subject matter.
Reasons why the Claims Would be Allowable over Prior Art
As noted initially in the final rejection dated 8/11/2023, and after an updated search, the claims are indicated as being allowable over prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding the prior art rejections, no prior art or non-patent literature has been found that teaches a user interface that toggles between a final and interim billing document mode, where the final bill is associated with time entries that are displayed when the final mode is selected, and the interim bill is associated with a pricing value that is displayed when the interim mode is selected.
The closest non-patent literature that reads on the Application is WK, CCH, Getting Started with ProSystem fx Practice Management. WK, CCH teaches a billing document setup and configurator with time entry modes, but not the specific user interface configuration claimed.
The closest prior art that reads on the claims are: Raja (Pub. No. US 2005/0049903 A1), Quinn (Pub. No. US 2009/0037247 A1), Allin et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0012886 A1). Raja teaches a comprehensive billing document transformation process and user interface with multiple options for different bill types. Quinn teaches a method and system for transforming data according to rules and parameters in the context of invoicing and billing. Allin teaches an invoice software with a user interface for switching between different bill/invoice modes or steps that include different options for each mode. However, neither reference alone or in combination teach the claimed specific user interface situation when combined with the rest of the claimed invention. In summation, Applicant’s claims are distinct from the closest prior art and non-patent literature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627