DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This application has PRO 63/063,048 filed on 08/07/2020
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-26, 29-35, 37-48 and 52-53 are pending and rejected.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 27, 28, 36, and 49-51 are canceled.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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, 2, 5-11, 13-26, 29-35, 37-48 and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards processing, storing, and displaying reports of tax data. The concept is related to a fundamental economic practice, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-26, 29-35, 37-48 and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-26, 29-35, 37-48 and 52-53 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards processing, storing, and displaying reports of tax data. Claim 25, for example, recites a process of receiving financial data from one or more sources, processing and storing the financial data, generating one or more reports from the financial data, analyzing the financial data to identify and highlight input data or a portion of the financial data that requires further review, providing one or more plurality of user interfaces for displaying financial data, and displaying related financial data when actuatable step icon is actuated. Such tax preparation related process is a longstanding economic practice. Millions of people rely on tax preparation software implementing similar concept to file tax every year. Thus, the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The present claims also recite a generic GUI comprising a navigation pane, a top pane, and a bottom pane (see FIG. 5 for example) for displaying tax data. Examiner points out that the layout recited in the claims is merely a webpage design choice, and all the GUI elements are conventional. There is no improvement in terms of functionality or efficiency in GUI technology. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, because the claimed invention is directed to “improvements in user interfaces that allow the user to select and to sequentially perform a series of automated and organized tax review steps forming part of an automated tax review process”. Examiner disagrees and points out that the present claims are merely directed to reviewing, processing, and reporting of financial data in tax filing, where the claimed concept utilize existing graphical user interface elements. The present claims fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, because reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data in tax filing is a fundamental economic practice. The GUI used by the present claims (i.e., actuatable waypoint elements representing steps in tax filing process) was an existing tool at the time of invention, thus it is considered an extra-solution for reviewing, processing, and reporting tax information.
Prong Two
Independent claim 1 recites an electronic device comprising a processor, a storage element, and a report generator as additional elements. These additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as processing financial data, storing the financial data, and generating reports from the financial data. Claim 1 also recites a user interface comprising a navigation pane, a top pane, and a bottom pane (see FIG. 5 for example), but these panes are merely just design choice for displaying data. Such layout is also conventional, so there is no improvement in GUI technology. Independent claim 25 recites similar limitations without clearly indicating “processor” and “storage element” as additional elements. Dependent claims 2, 5-11, 13-24, 26, 29-35, 37-48 and 52-53 do not recite any additional element. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Rather, the present claims implement an abstract concept using existing computer technology in a networked computer environment. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, the present claims only recite an electronic device comprising a processor, a storage element, and a report generator as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving notification, accessing data record, updating data record, and transmitting data record. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology.
As pointed out earlier, actuatable “steps” in a tax filing process were well-known and included in the most popular tax preparation software, such as H&R Block and TurboTax. Applicant’s amended claims do not recite any improvement in computer technology or GUI technology over existing tools. Both the claims and the specification do not provide evidence that the GUI in the present claims provide improvement (in terms of computation efficiency, data security, and resource usage) over existing tax filing software (such as H&R Block and TurboTax). The so called “customized user interface” does not provide new function, and the arrangement/combination of the “waypoint elements” does not provide unexpected result (i.e., the steps in the waypoint elements are conventional tax filing steps).
The Core Wireless court noted that the recited UI of Core Wireless improved “[t]he speed of a user’s navigation through various views and windows…because it ‘saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated’”. The court held that this was an improvement to the functioning of computers, because the user interface can display information contained in smartphone apps in unlaunched state (i.e. without launching the apps), thus reducing the time and resource usage in obtaining and displaying information. Data Engine recites a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets, which improve the efficient functioning of computers by allowing the user to simply and conveniently “flip through” several pages of a notebook to rapidly locate information of interest. Such method of navigating 3D spreadsheet is not conventional. The present claims, on the other hand, recite a generic tax filing graphical user interface what a “timeline” comprising actuatable steps of tax filing process. As discussed earlier, tax filing software at the time (for example, H&R Block and TurboTax) already had similar GUI, thus the present claims do not provide computation efficiency like the claims of Core Wireless and Data Engine.
Examiner argues the present claims are actually closer to Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the Federal Circuit court ruled that “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assist traders in processing information more quickly” is insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. The present claims utilize a well-understood and conventional “timeline element” (also known as “progress indicator”) to display and prompt user to input data in each defined step. The GUI element does not improve computer functioning in the form of reducing resource consumption, enhancing data security, or improving processing speed. It is merely arranging financial information in a way that assists user to read data more quickly.
Claim 1 now recites: “each of the actuatable step icon elements are configured to be selected at any time to cause presentation of an associated window element, a data field of the one or more data fields in one or more of the plurality of user interfaces is adjusted based on information input within the one or more input fields, the electronic device is configured to analyze the financial data to identify input data or a portion of the financial data that requires further review, the electronic device is configured to identify input data or portion of the financial data that requires further review based on information received at a first user interface, the input data or the portion of the financial data that requires further review is not presented on the first user interface that is instead presented on a second user interface, and the electronic device is configured to highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review”. Examiner points out that these are standard graphical user interface features. These GUI features can be found on popular tax preparation software, such as TurboTax, and software in other fields. Examiner points out that “arranging transaction information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” (Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC) and “mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase” (Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services) and “gathering analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” (TLI Communications) are considered by the Federal Circuit to be insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Similarly, the actuatable icon, the data field, displaying result in a second graphical interface, and highlighting data in the present claims are merely arranging tax information on a graphical user interface to assist users in preparing and reviewing tax filing; analyzing data to identify input data or portion of the financial data that requires further review is mere automation of manual process. Therefore, the additional elements in the present claims do not integrate the abstract concept into a practical application.
The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 13-22, 24-26, 29-31, 35, 37-46, 48 and 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0394723), in view of Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0198278), Daianu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0188326), and Eftekhari et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0221154) and Morin et al. (Patent No.: US 10,943,309).
As per claim 1 and 25, Baker teaches an intelligent review and processing system, comprising
one or more sources of financial data (see paragraph 0190-0191, “obtaining data from tax information sources”),
an electronic device having a processor for processing the financial data (see paragraph 0075-0077 and 0261),
a storage element for storing the financial data (see paragraph 0039, 0063, 0138-0141), and
a report generator for generating one or more reports from the financial data, the report generator having a user interface generator for generating a plurality of user interfaces each having a window element that displays selected portions of the processed financial data (see paragraph 0045, 0052-0053, 0067, 0115, 0164, 0201, “Other options 320 to select among the plurality of user interfaces might include, but are not limited to, a reports user interface (presenting financial reports, tax reports, and/or financial statements, or the like”),
wherein the window element of the user interfaces includes: a navigation pane formed along a left side of the window element having an actuatable soft button for accessing one or more portions of a tax review sequence having a plurality of tax review steps (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the side pane has actuatable soft buttons that can display corresponding information when clicked; Examiner notes what is actually displayed in the side navigation pane is non-functional descriptive material which does not carry patentable weight), a main pane element for displaying information associated with one or more of the plurality of tax review steps (see paragraph 0031 and 0072) and
wherein one or more of the plurality of user interfaces has a window element that includes a graphical element representative of the plurality of tax review steps (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B),
wherein one or more of the step icon elements and the navigation pane (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the side pane has actuatable soft buttons that can display corresponding information when clicked; Examiner notes what is actually displayed in the side navigation pane is non-functional descriptive material which does not carry patentable weight), when the associated soft button is actuated, comprises
a Step 1 View Current Year Transactions step icon element for displaying, when actuated, financial data related to current year transactions and deliverables of a company (see abstract, paragraph 0029-0042; especially paragraph 0037, “by accessing, from the first accounting or ERP software system, all transaction data from the one or more selected accounts associated with the first entity within the one or more selected fiscal years”),
a Step 2 View Accounts Analysis step icon element for displaying, when actuated, financial data related to a taxable income of the company (see paragraph 0093, “owners who log in and see the results can see up to date, adjusted taxable income”),
a Step 3 View Financial Statement Reconciliation step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with a tax return of the company (see paragraph 0089-0091),
a Step 4 View Federal Tax Income Activity step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with the taxable income, earnings, and profits of the company (see paragraph 0093 and 0224),
a Step 5 View US International Calculations and Reports step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with one or more selected workbooks (see paragraph 0221-0222),
a Step 6 View Federal Tax Return step icon element for displaying when actuated the tax return of the company (see paragraph 0031, “facilitate autonomous generation of tax returns for the first entity”; also see paragraph 0040, 0072, 0191, and 0196-0197 for example), and
a Step 7 View State Taxable Income and Returns step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data related to state related financial information (see paragraph 0091 and 0190, “using the client’s SSN or EIN to pull data from tax preparation software (including, but not limited to, taxable income…state tax owned, state tax payment…)”),
wherein each of the step icon elements is associated with a respective one of the plurality of waypoint elements (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the side pane has actuatable soft buttons that can display corresponding information when clicked).
Examiner notes Baker does not explicitly teach a display pane for displaying information associated with one or more of the plurality of tax review steps in one or more data fields, the display pane including one or more input fields; and wherein each of the actuatable step icon elements are configured to be selected at any time to cause presentation of an associated window element, and wherein a data field of the one or more data fields in one or more of the plurality of user interfaces is adjusted based on information input within the one or more input fields. Examiner points out that these limitations describe a progress bar, which is a well-known GUI element.
Cheng teaches a display pane for displaying information associated with one or more of the plurality of steps in one or more data fields, the display pane including one or more input fields (see FIG. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19a; also see paragraph 0077-0087, “The display 1500 includes a navigation area 1510 which includes a progress indicator made up of step indicators 1511-1515. The display of step indicator 1511 for the first step more prominently than the other step indicators indicates that the first step is presently being performed”; FIG. 15 for example, has a display pane for displaying a progress indicator 1510; the progress indicator displays the steps for entering information – “1. Edit Home Facts”, “2. Add Home Improvement”, “3. Other Features”, “4. Refine Comps”, “5. Summary”; and there are data input fields in each actuatable step); and
wherein each of the actuatable step icon elements are configured to be selected at any time to cause presentation of an associated window element, and wherein a data field of the one or more data fields in one or more of the plurality of user interfaces is adjusted based on information input within the one or more input fields (see FIG. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19a; also see paragraph 0077-0087; FIG. 15 for example, has a display pane for displaying a progress indicator 1510; the progress indicator displays the steps for entering information – “1. Edit Home Facts”, “2. Add Home Improvement”, “3. Other Features”, “4. Refine Comps”, “5. Summary”; see FIG. 16, each of the actuatable steps can be selected by clicking on the step icon or by clicking the “Prev” or “Next” icon at any time to cause presentation of the selected step; in each step, there are interactive input fields for user to enter information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Baker with teaching from Cheng to include a display pane for displaying information associated with one or more of the plurality of tax review steps in one or more data fields, the display pane including one or more input fields; and wherein each of the actuatable step icon elements are configured to be selected at any time to cause presentation of an associated window element, and wherein a data field of the one or more data fields in one or more of the plurality of user interfaces is adjusted based on information input within the one or more input fields. Although Cheng is not related to tax preparation, Cheng’s “progress indicator” provides the same function as the “timeline element” in the present claims. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., providing an interactive progress indicator with a plurality of actuatable step icons which can be selected to display data field related to the selected step) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., allow users to select other steps outside of the default order if they prefer to enter certain information first or go back to steps they have already filled).
Examiner notes however, the combination of Baker and Cheng does not explicitly teach for allowing a user to directly perform one or more tax review steps in a tax review sequence and to sequentially perform the tax review steps in the tax review sequence; wherein the graphical element includes a graphical timeline element having a plurality of waypoint elements associated therewith, wherein each of the plurality of waypoint elements has associated therewith an actuatable step icon element representative of one of the plurality of tax review steps, and wherein each of the step icon elements has associated with therewith an actuatable soft button; and wherein each of the actuatable step icon elements is associated soft button is actuated, includes:
an actuatable Step 1 View Current Year Transactions step icon element for displaying, when actuated, financial data related to current year transactions and deliverables of a company, an actuatable Step 2 View Accounts Analysis step icon element for displaying, when actuated, financial data related to a taxable income of the company, an actuatable Step 3 View Financial Statement Reconciliation step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with a tax return of the company, an actuatable Step 4 View Federal Tax Income Activity step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with the taxable income, earnings, and profits of the company, an actuatable Step 5 View US International Calculations and Reports step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with one or more selected workbooks, an actuatable Step 6 View Federal Tax Return step icon element for displaying when actuated the tax return of the company, and an actuatable Step 7 View State Taxable Income and Returns step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data related to state related financial information, wherein each of the step icon elements is associated with a respective one of the plurality of waypoint elements.
Daianu teaches allowing a user to directly perform one or more tax review steps in a tax review sequence and to sequentially perform the tax review steps in the tax review sequence; wherein the graphical element includes a graphical timeline element having a plurality of waypoint elements associated therewith, wherein each of the plurality of waypoint elements has associated therewith an actuatable step icon element representative of one of the plurality of tax review steps (see paragraph 0085 and FIG. 4, “The screen 400 includes multiple tabs including Summary, Personal info, Federal Taxes, State Taxes, and eFile. By choosing one of these tabs, a user can navigate the UI screen to prepare and file a tax return”; prior art teaches actuatable tabs, where each tab represents a major step in filing tax with the software); and
wherein each of the actuatable step icon elements is associated soft button is actuated, includes: an actuatable Step 1 View Current Year Transactions step icon element for displaying, when actuated, financial data related to current year transactions and deliverables of a company, an actuatable Step 2 View Accounts Analysis step icon element for displaying, when actuated, financial data related to a taxable income of the company, an actuatable Step 3 View Financial Statement Reconciliation step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with a tax return of the company, an actuatable Step 4 View Federal Tax Income Activity step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with the taxable income, earnings, and profits of the company, an actuatable Step 5 View US International Calculations and Reports step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data associated with one or more selected workbooks, an actuatable Step 6 View Federal Tax Return step icon element for displaying when actuated the tax return of the company, and an actuatable Step 7 View State Taxable Income and Returns step icon element for displaying when actuated financial data related to state related financial information, wherein each of the step icon elements is associated with a respective one of the plurality of waypoint elements (see paragraph 0085 and FIG. 4, “The screen 400 includes multiple tabs including Summary, Personal info, Federal Taxes, State Taxes, and eFile. By choosing one of these tabs, a user can navigate the UI screen to prepare and file a tax return”; prior art clearly teaches actuatable tabs, which are waypoint elements each representing a step in tax filing; the Summary tab is equivalent to Step 2 icon which shows summary of accounts analysis, the Federal Taxes tab is equivalent to Step 4 icon and Step 6 icon which show federal tax income activity and tax return information, and the State Taxes tab is equivalent to Step 7 icon which shows state taxable income and return information).
Eftekhari also teaches a similar TurboTax GUI, where the actuatable tabs – Personal Info, Federal Taxes, State Taxes, Review, and File – are further labeled as waypoint steps in a “Tax Timeline” (see FIG. 12). One skilled in the art would know that TurboTax provides an interactive interface that guides users to go through each step to enter tax information for filing. Users are free to actuate other step elements outside of the default order if they prefer to enter certain information first or go back to steps they have already filled (see paragraph 0098).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Baker and Cheng with teaching from Daianu and Eftekhari to include the above features. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., using actuatable waypoint elements to represent steps in tax filing process) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., allow users to select other steps outside of the default order if they prefer to enter certain information first or go back to steps they have already filled).
Examiner further notes, the combination of Baker, Cheng, Daianu and Eftekhari does not explicitly teach the electronic device is configured to analyze the financial data to identify input data or a portion of the financial data that requires further review, the electronic device is configured to identify input data or the portion of the financial data that requires further review based on information received at a first user interface, the input data or the portion of the financial data that requires further review is not presented on the first user interface and is instead presented on a second user interface, and the electronic device is configured to highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review. Examiner points out however, this feature is a standard feature in tax prep software, such as TurboTax. To support this argument, Examiner cites Morin et al.
Morin teaches the electronic device is configured to analyze the financial data to identify input data or a portion of the financial data that requires further review, the electronic device is configured to identify input data or the portion of the financial data that requires further review based on information received at a first user interface, the input data or the portion of the financial data that requires further review is not presented on the first user interface and is instead presented on a second user interface, and the electronic device is configured to highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review (see col 18 line 41-67, “As the user continues to enter current user tax related data 118, the interface engine 115 can continue to analyze the additional data entries”, Examiner interprets this input GUI as the first interface); “The interference engine 115 also generates personalized tax return preparation data that can be provided to the user indicating to the user that the user has possibly made an error. The personalization preparation data provided to the user can highlight the possible error and can prompt the user to review the possibly erroneous data input and make a correction if an error has indeed been made”, Examiner interprets the personalization preparation data display as the second interface; displaying identified data which requires further review in a separate tab or window or page is merely a design choice; such feature is not novel and does not provide unexpected result; as such, this feature would be considered an obvious variant of the cited prior arts.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Baker, Cheng, Daianu and Eftekhari with teaching from Morin to include the electronic device is configured to analyze the financial data to identify input data or a portion of the financial data that requires further review, the electronic device is configured to identify input data or the portion of the financial data that requires further review based on information received at a first user interface, the input data or the portion of the financial data that requires further review is not presented on the first user interface and is instead presented on a second user interface, and the electronic device is configured to highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., highlighting possible data entry error) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., prompt user to correct possible entry error).
As per claim 2 and 26, Baker teaches wherein the window element further comprises a header pane that is disposed or located at a topmost portion of the window element (see paragraph 0202 and 0210).
As per claim 5 and 29, Baker teaches wherein the actuatable soft button associated with each of the step icon elements comprises an actuatable Start soft button for displaying, when actuated, one or more of the user interfaces associated with the tax review step associated therewith (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the side pane has actuatable soft buttons that can display corresponding information when clicked).
As per claim 6 and 30, Baker teaches wherein the graphical element includes a circular graphical element and an associated counter element representative of the selected tax review step (Examiner points out that this is merely a design element and not a functional element, thus this feature does not carry patentable weight).
As per claim 7 and 31, Baker teaches wherein the circular graphical element further comprises a highlight graphical element for visually highlighting a selected portion of the circular graphical element (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the side pane has actuatable soft buttons that can be highlighted).
As per claim 11 and 35, Baker teaches a menu box that is displayed in the window element when the actuatable soft button in the navigation pane is actuated by a user, wherein the menu box displays the plurality of tax review steps (see paragraph 0043, prior art teaches a GUI that provides options for performing one or more tasks; options are interpreted as menu box items; also see paragraph 0058 and 0200-0201).
As per claim 12 and 36, Baker teaches wherein the top pane element includes an actuatable filter button that allows the user to select one or data filters from a list of data filters (see paragraph 0201).
As per claim 13 and 37, Baker does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom pane element displays information associated with each of the plurality of tax review steps, and wherein one or more of the plurality of tax review steps includes a plurality of actuatable tab elements.
Daianu teaches wherein the bottom pane element displays information associated with each of the plurality of tax review steps, and wherein one or more of the plurality of tax review steps includes a plurality of actuatable tab elements (see paragraph 0062-0065 and FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Baker with teaching from Dainu to include wherein the bottom pane element displays information associated with each of the plurality of tax review steps, and wherein one or more of the plurality of tax review steps includes a plurality of actuatable tab elements. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., using tab to organize displayed information) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., make interface cleaner).
As per claim 14 and 38, Baker teaches wherein when the Step 1 View Current Year Transactions step icon element is actuated, the bottom pane element displays the plurality of tab elements, and the plurality of tab elements includes one or more of: a Current Year Transactions tab element that allows the user to document and analyze a current year transaction data portion of the financial data, an Entity Change Analysis tab element that allows the user to review changes to the entity structure of the company and to analyze any impact of the changes, a Deliverables Analysis tab element that allows the user to review the completeness and accuracy of a deliverables portion of the financial data, an Acquisition Method Accounting tab element that allows the user to review acquisition information that affects a tax obligation of the company; and an Equity Movement tab element that allows the user to review and analyze equity activity of the company (see abstract, paragraph 0029-0042; especially paragraph 0037, “by accessing, from the first accounting or ERP software system, all transaction data from the one or more selected accounts associated with the first entity within the one or more selected fiscal years”).
As per claim 15 and 39, Baker teaches wherein, when the Entity Change Analysis tab element is actuated, the bottom pane element displays a plurality of sub-tab elements comprising one or more of: a Refresh Report sub-tab element for refreshing information within one or more reports generated by the report generator, a View sub-tab element for viewing one or more selectable fields for applying an associated filter to the financial data, a Compare PY Return to CY Return sub-tab element for comparing the financial data in a current year tax return to financial data in a prior year tax return, and a Compare CY Provision to CY Return sub-tab element for allowing the user to compare the financial data in the current year tax return with the financial data in a selected tax income provision (see paragraph 0201, prior art teaches a GUI for viewing one or more selectable filters to filter the financial data).
As per claim 16 and 40, Baker teaches wherein when the View sub-tab element is actuated, the pane element displays a drop down menu that includes a plurality of selectable fields indicative of information related to the entity structure (see paragraph 0211, “has a dropdown list for the user to select such a person”).
As per claim 17 and 41, Baker teaches wherein the plurality of selectable fields includes one or more of an entity name field, entity type field, new entities field, terminated entities field, ownership field, and a functional currency field (see paragraph 0031, 0035, 0150, and 0153).
As per claim 18 and 42, Baker teaches wherein the drop down menu includes a plurality of action buttons (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the side pane has actuatable soft buttons that can display corresponding information when clicked).
As per claim 19 and 43, Baker teaches when the Deliverables Analysis tab element is actuated, the bottom pane element displays a plurality of sub-tab elements comprising
a Potential Nexus Activity report tab element for displaying financial data associated with state apportionment activity (see paragraph 0091, “the accountant can identify the characteristics for transactions that drive those state allocations and use that platform to identify and collect them to automate state tax allocations”), and
a Changes to Filing Group report tab element for comparing and displaying information associated with one or more entities of a company of a current calendar year with similar data from a prior selected year (see paragraph 0190, “prompting for any differences from the contact information pulled from the accounting software package file(s)”).
As per claim 20 and 44, when the Acquisition Method Accounting tab element is actuated, the bottom pane element displays a plurality of sub-tab elements comprising a Temporary Difference sub-tab element for displaying information associated with an acquisition method accounting of the company, and an Impact on Permanent Differences sub-tab element for displaying information associated with transaction costs and book tax differences of the company (see paragraph 0193, “highlighting differences in reclassification tax lead options and indicating where different”).
As per claim 21 and 45, Baker teaches when the Equity Movement tab element is actuated, the bottom pane element displays a plurality of sub-tab elements comprising one or more of a Summary of retained Earnings Activity sub-tab element for displaying financial data associated with retained earnings of the company, a Summary of Additional Paid in Capital Activity sub-tab element for displaying financial data related to capital of the company, a Summary of the Common Stock Activity sub-tab element for displaying financial data related to common stock of the company, a Summary of the Preferred Stock Activity sub-tab element for displaying financial data related to preferred stock of the company, and a Summary of Treasury Stock Activity sub-tab element for displaying financial data associated with activity involving treasury stock (see paragraph 0081, “the command center provides the CPA or accountant (or other user) the ability to see no only the financial position of a given client with summaries, graphs, and ratios”; also see paragraph 0091 and 0164).
As per claim 22 and 46, Baker teaches when the Step 2 View Accounts Analysis step icon element is actuated the bottom pane element displays a second plurality of tab elements, wherein the second plurality of tab elements includes one or more of: a New Accounts tab element for displaying when actuated selected portions of the financial data related to new general ledger accounts of the company, an Incomplete Mappings tab element for displaying when actuated one or more accounts where an analysis of the accounts has not yet been completed, a Deleted Accounts tab element for displaying when actuated the one or more accounts in a prior year tax return or provision that are absent from a current year tax return, a Change in Mappings tab element for displaying when actuated the one or more accounts of the company that has mapping changes, a Complete Mappings tab element for displaying when actuated one or more accounts of the company that have been mapped and displaying details associated with the mapping, and a Standard BTD Mapping tab element (see paragraph 0172 and 0201, “an account mappings user interface”; also see paragraph 0215).
As per claim 24 and 48, Baker teaches when the Step 4 View Federal Tax Income Activity step icon element is actuated, the bottom pane element displays a fourth plurality of tab elements, wherein the fourth plurality of tab elements includes one or more of: a Diagnostics tab element for displaying, when actuated, the financial data employed to determine a taxable income, earnings and profit of the company and for allowing the user to review selected patterns in the financial data indicative of one or more errors, a Tax Adjustments Analysis tab element for displaying when actuated the financial data employed to determine a book tax difference of the company and to perform a risk based review of the book tax differences, a Basis Differences tab element for allowing when actuated the user to review and assess an accuracy of a basis difference in the financial data used in the tax return not affecting taxable income of the company, a Taxable Income Reconciliation tab element for displaying when actuated information associated with a reconciliation of the taxable income of the company in comparison to one or more previous income tax provisions, and a Checks and Balances tab element for displaying when actuated selected portions of the tax return of the company to ensure that certain aspects thereof are reconciled (see paragraph 0102-0103, 0187, and 0193).
As per claim 52, Baker does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic device is configured to highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review by emphasizing the actuatable step element associated with the portion of the financial data that requires further review.
Morin teaches wherein the electronic device is configured to highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review by emphasizing the actuatable step element associated with the portion of the financial data that requires further review (see col 18 line 41-67, “the probability inference data 125 can include an interface that the user has made an error in providing the current user tax related data 118…The personalized tax return preparation data provided to the user can highlight the possible error and can prompt the user to review the possibly erroneous data input and make a correction if an error has indeed been made”; see col 19 line 1-36, “The inference engine 15 generates personalized tax return preparation data that includes a personalized prompt to the user to review the gross income number as entered by the user…The user is grateful that the tax return preparation system found this error in real time so that the error could be corrected with little inconvenience to the user”; prior art teaches highlighting possible data entry error at the step where user entered the possible error and prompting user to make correction; the claimed limitation is an obvious variant of Morin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Baker, Cheng, Daianu and Eftekhari with teaching from Morin to include wherein the electronic device is configured to highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review by emphasizing the actuatable step element associated with the portion of the financial data that requires further review. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., highlighting possible data entry error) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., prompt user to correct possible entry error).
As per claim 53, Baker does not explicitly teach wherein the portion of the financial data that requires further review is highlighted by emphasizing the actuatable step icon element associated with the portion of the financial data that requires further review.
Morin teaches wherein the portion of the financial data that requires further review is highlighted by emphasizing the actuatable step icon element associated with the portion of the financial data that requires further review (see col 18 line 41-67, “the probability inference data 125 can include an interface that the user has made an error in providing the current user tax related data 118…The personalized tax return preparation data provided to the user can highlight the possible error and can prompt the user to review the possibly erroneous data input and make a correction if an error has indeed been made”; see col 19 line 1-36, “The inference engine 15 generates personalized tax return preparation data that includes a personalized prompt to the user to review the gross income number as entered by the user…The user is grateful that the tax return preparation system found this error in real time so that the error could be corrected with little inconvenience to the user”; prior art teaches highlighting possible data entry error at the step where user entered the possible error and prompting user to make correction; the claimed limitation is an obvious variant of Morin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Baker, Cheng, Daianu and Eftekhari with teaching from Morin to include wherein the portion of the financial data that requires further review is highlighted by emphasizing the actuatable step icon element associated with the portion of the financial data that requires further review. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., highlighting possible data entry error) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., prompt user to correct possible entry error).
Claim(s) 8 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0394723), in view of Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0198278), Daianu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0188326), and Eftekhari et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0221154) and Morin et al. (Patent No.: US 10,943,309), and further in view of Norquist et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0078309).
As per claim 8 and 32, Baker does not explicitly teach a back navigation icon element disposed adjacent to the circular graphical element for navigating through the plurality of tax review steps in a descending order, and a forward navigation icon element disposed opposite to the back navigation icon element for navigating through the plurality of tax review steps in an ascending order. Examiner notes back navigation icon and forward navigation icon are well-known GUI elements. It is a built-in feature in most if not all operating systems.
Norquist teaches a back navigation icon element disposed adjacent to the circular graphical element for navigating through the plurality of steps in a descending order, and a forward navigation icon element disposed opposite to the back navigation icon element for navigating through the plurality of steps in an ascending order (see paragraph 0070 and 0123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Baker with teaching from Norquist to include a back navigation icon element disposed adjacent to the circular graphical element for navigating through the plurality of tax review steps in a descending order, and a forward navigation icon element disposed opposite to the back navigation icon element for navigating through the plurality of tax review steps in an ascending order. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., providing back and forward navigation icon) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., allow user to quickly go back and forwards between different pages of information).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0394723), in view of Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0198278), Daianu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0188326), and Eftekhari et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0221154) and Morin et al. (Patent No.: US 10,943,309), and further in view of Norquist et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0078309) and Bhowmick et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0123072).
As per claim 9 and 33, Baker teaches wherein the navigation bar includes a plurality of navigation icons, wherein each of the navigation icons corresponds to each of the plurality of tax review steps (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the side pane has actuatable soft buttons that can display corresponding information when clicked). Baker does not explicitly teach wherein the window element further comprises a hideable navigation bar disposed on a bottommost portion thereof and below and adjacent to the bottom pane element. Examiner notes hideable navigation bar is a well-known GUI elements.
Bhowmick teaches wherein the window element further comprises a hideable navigation bar disposed on a bottommost portion thereof and below and adjacent to the bottom pane element (see paragraph 0034, “The label at 104 identifie the navigation bar 100 as a ‘MeeBar’…The hide button can remove the MeetBar from view”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Baker with teaching from Bhowmick to include wherein the window element further comprises a hideable navigation bar disposed on a bottommost portion thereof and below and adjacent to the bottom pane element. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., hideable navigation bar) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., make interface cleaner).
As per claim 10 and 34, Baker does not teach wherein the navigation bar is hideable by selecting a soft button associated with the navigation bar.
Bhowmick teaches wherein the navigation bar is hideable by selecting a soft button associated with the navigation bar (see paragraph 0034, “The label at 104 identifie the navigation bar 100 as a ‘MeeBar’…The hide button can remove the MeetBar from view”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Baker with teaching from Bhowmick to include wherein the navigation bar is hideable by selecting a soft button associated with the navigation bar. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., hideable navigation bar) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., make interface cleaner).
Claim(s) 23 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0394723), in view of Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0198278), Daianu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0188326), and Eftekhari et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0221154) and Morin et al. (Patent No.: US 10,943,309) and further in view of Edens (Pub. No.: US 2010/0036775).
As per claim 23 and 47, Baker teaches when the Step 3 View Financial Statement Reconciliation step icon element is actuated, the bottom pane element displays a third plurality of tab elements, wherein the third plurality of tab elements includes an Adjusting Journal Entries report tab element for displaying one or more of the journal entries in the project (see paragraph 0033-0034, 0038-0041, 0060-0067, for example), and a Financial Statement Reconciliation report tab element for displaying when actuated any differences between financial data entries in the workbook with selected financial data in the tax return (see paragraph 0089-0091).
Examiner notes however, Baker does not explicitly teach an Exchange Rate Workbook report tab element for displaying, when actuated, information associated with exchange rates being employed in a project employing the tax steps and used for translating financial data into one or more foreign currencies.
Edens teaches an Exchange Rate Workbook report tab element for displaying, when actuated, information associated with exchange rates being employed in a project employing the tax steps and used for translating financial data into one or more foreign currencies (see abstract and paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Baker with teaching from Edens to include an Exchange Rate Workbook report tab element for displaying, when actuated, information associated with exchange rates being employed in a project employing the tax steps and used for translating financial data into one or more foreign currencies. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., convert financial data into other foreign currencies) to a known system (i.e., system for reviewing, processing, and reporting financial data) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., fulfill accounting requirement).
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant did not make any amendment in the response filed on 01/22/2026.
Applicant argued that the claims have a practical application and improve computer technology by providing a graphical timeline element to allow users to quickly and easily navigate through user interfaces. Examiner first point out that arranging information in a way that allows users to obtain information more quickly is not sufficient to improve computer functionality. Federal Circuit ruled that “Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290). The present claims utilize a well-understood and conventional “timeline element” (also known as “progress indicator”) to display and prompt user to input data in each defined step. The GUI element does not improve computer functioning in the form of reducing resource consumption, enhancing data security, or improving processing speed. It is merely arranging financial information in a way that assists user to read data more quickly.
Applicant then argued the point of distinction between Data Engine and the present application is unclear. Data Engine recites a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets, which improve the efficient functioning of computers by allowing the user to simply and conveniently “flip through” several pages of a notebook to rapidly locate information of interest. Typical human would have difficult time navigating 3D spreadsheets, as most human are used to 2D spreadsheets. DATA Engine uses an unconventional method to transform 3D spreadsheets to another format human can understand. On the other hand, the present claims merely utilize a well-understood and conventional “timeline element” (also known as “progress indicator”) to display and prompt user to input data in each defined step. The present claims are closer to Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC.
Applicant also argued that claim 52 further specify improvements to allow users to rapidly locate information of interest, by highlighting portion of the financial data that requires further review. Examiner points out that highlighting information of interest is a built-in feature of most graphical user interfaces. Microsoft Windows and Apple iOS, for example, can highlight information of interest by using different color of background for the text of interest or by flashing the text/icon of interest. As such, the present claims do not provide improvement in graphical user interface.
With regards to detecting and flagging user error and alerting the user, such feature is well-known in tax preparation software. Examiner has seen this feature in Intuit’s TurboTax prior to the effective filing date of the present application. To support this argument, Examiner cites Morin et al. (Patent No.: US 10,943,309) - see col 18 line 41-67, “the probability inference data 125 can include an interface that the user has made an error in providing the current user tax related data 118…As the user continues to enter current user tax related data 118, the interference engine 115 can continue to analyze the additional data entries and can compare them to the statistical distribution of corresponding data entries in the historical tax related data 124 associated with the one or more subsets of the historical users. The interference engine 115 may determine that a data entry made by the user is highly improbable based on the distribution associated with the one or more subsets of historical users…The interference engine 115 also generates personalized tax return preparation data that can be provided to the user indicating to the user that the user has possibly made an error. The personalized tax return preparation data provided to the user can highlight the possible error and can prompt the user to review the possibly erroneous data input and make a correction if an error has indeed been made”; prior art clearly teaches determining and highlighting user’s input error, and displaying the possible errors in a particular interface separate from data entry interface. Moreover, the amended claims do not specify how entry errors are detected. The specification also lacks detailed disclosure on how the error identification/detection is performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to use this feature by reading the specification, unless this feature was well-known at the time of the invention, and it was as evident in Morin et al. Reciting a well-known feature in tax prep software does not improve existing computer function or the tax prep art.
Moreover, as discussed earlier, the GUI user interface elements in the present claims are not sufficient to improve computer-functionality. Examiner points out that “arranging transaction information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” (Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC) and “mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase” (Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services) and “gathering analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” (TLI Communications) are considered by the Federal Circuit to be insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Similarly, the actuatable icon, the data field, displaying result in a second graphical interface, and highlighting data in the present claims are merely arranging tax information on a graphical user interface to assist users in preparing and reviewing tax filing; analyzing data to identify input data or portion of the financial data that requires further review is mere automation of manual process. Therefore, the additional elements in the present claims do not integrate the abstract concept into a practical application.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. 101 were not persuasive. Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argued there is no motivation to combine Cheng with Baker and the other recited references. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Examiner points out that Cheng and Baker both belong to G06Q40 class because they are related to finance and accounting. Moreover, the progress indicator shown in Cheng can be used by used by any GUI that deals with multi-steps process. Such progress indicator was not novel at the time of filing of the present application. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to show user’s progress and allow user to go back a step or skip a step in the process by clicking the step icons on the progress indicator.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argued that the cited prior arts do not teach “the input data or the portion of the identified data requires further review is not presented on the first user interface and is instead presented on a second user interface”. Examiner disagrees and points out that the specification does not provide clear description of this feature. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second user interface can be a different “tab” or “window” from the first user interface (this interpretation is supported by page 3 of the specification). Col 18 line 41-67 of Morin et al. (Patent No.: US 10,943,309) teaches “As the user continues to enter current user tax related data 118, the interface engine 115 can continue to analyze the additional data entries” (Examiner interprets this input GUI as the first interface), and “The interference engine 115 also generates personalized tax return preparation data that can be provided to the user indicating to the user that the user has possibly made an error. The personalization preparation data provided to the user can highlight the possible error and can prompt the user to review the possibly erroneous data input and make a correction if an error has indeed been made” (Examiner interprets the personalization preparation data display as the second interface). Displaying identified data which requires further review in a separate tab or window or page is merely a design choice. Such feature is not novel and does not provide unexpected result. As such, this feature would be considered an obvious variant of the cited prior arts.
Applicant also argue that Morin does not contemplate conducting an analysis of other data that has previously been input by the user to evaluate whether or not that data has any errors, including data at other screens. Examiner reminds Applicant that the claim language merely recites “analyze the financial data to identify input data or a portion of the financial data that requires further review”. Col 18 line 41 through col 19 line 36 of Morin teaches analyzing user input data against historical data to identify and highlight possible error, and prompting the user to review. The claim language reads on the prior art. Moreover, the prior art does not limit the error detection being done to only the input data being entered by user at the moment. One skilled in the art would interpret the error detection is being performed on all the input data for the current tax year.
Applicant further argued Morin does not teach “highlight the portion of the financial data that requires further review by emphasizing the actuatable step icon element associated with the portion of the financial data that requires further review”, as recited in claim 52. Examiner has stated that the Morin teaches highlighting possible error that requires further review, a fact that Applicant admitted. Examiner has also stated that emphasizing the step icon associated with the possible error is an obvious variant of Morin. Moreover, it is unclear what “emphasizing” mean. The specification does not provide definition or even mention the limitation. Examiner also notes claim 52 was not an original claim, and was added in subsequent response. The claim could be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a for lack of support in the specification, if Applicant argue the claim recites more than what is supported in the specification. Morin teaches highlighting “the possible error and can prompt the user to review the possibility erroneous data input and make a correction if an error has indeed been made”. The prior art is open ended with regards to bringing attention to possible error. Any conventional method of bringing attention to user would be considered obvious variant of Morin.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains the grounds of rejection.
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
FEB-2026