DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 11 and 13 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are examined below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action. The rejection has been maintained. See below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim objection set forth in the previous Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, adds the limitation "converting, by the processor, the uploaded document template into a standardized digital format used by the onboarding accelerator” and “storing the standardized onboarding request in the data storage.” After reviewing Applicant' s specification, Examiner is unable to find support for any sort document standardization, as claimed. While the Specification does describe document “digitization”, this is not the same thing as standardization and Applicant’s argument of inherency is not persuasive. The amended limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement, because the document standardization was not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventory had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. As such, this amended limitation constitutes new matter. Claims 2-7 are rejected do to their dependency from Claim 1. Correction is required.
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 1-7 is 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 1 has been amended to include storing the standardized onboarding request in the data storage. The examiner is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention because it is not evident what the standardized onboarding request refers to. There is no subsequent step of standardizing an onboarding request. Rather, the claim recites a previous step of converting an uploaded document template into a standardized digital format. Are these the same thing or different? Is there a difference between a standardized onboarding request and an onboarding request? The claim is unclear.
Additionally, the claim recites a newly amended limitation reciting automatically generating, by the processor, a notification when the amendment letter is updated. There is no previous recitation to updating an amendment letter in the claim. Clarification is necessary. Claims 2-7 are rejected do to their dependency from Claim 1. Correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea that is a method of organizing human activities. With regard to claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
A networked onboarding system, comprising:
data storage storing a set of entity data and a plurality of document templates each defining a legal agreement between two or more entities;
a computing device with a processor, the computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the following steps:
commanding, by the processor, prompting a user of one of the client devices to enter data for an account;
in response to input from the user, receiving, by the processor and from at least one client device in the plurality of client devices, an upload one of the document templates;
processing, by the processor, the data for the account to determine an entity authorized to trade on the account; converting, by the processor, the uploaded document template into a standardized digital format used by the onboarding accelerator;
populating by the processor, an onboarding request using the one of the document templates, the data for the account, the entity authorized to trade on the account, and additional data retrieved from the set of entity data based on the data for the account;
storing the standardized onboarding request in the data storage;
transmitting by the processor, the onboarding request to the user for review and submittal for processing by the onboarding accelerator;
automatically generating, by the processor, an amendment letter in response to receipt of the onboarding request from the user,
automatically generating, by the processor, a notification when the amendment letter is updated;
transmitting, by the processor, the notification to relevant entities via the digital communication network, thereby providing all involved entities with real-time access to the updated amendment letter regardless of the client device used;
displaying, by the processor, the amendment letter in a graphical user interface on one of the client devices;
displaying, by the processor, an update to the amendment letter in the graphical user interface;
prompting, by the processor, in a graphical user interface on one of the client devices to execute the amendment;
wherein the onboarding accelerator integrates entity data, document collection, KYC (know your customer) and tax profile validation, regulatory protocols and self-declarations, legal and credit agreements, and operational set up into a seamless solution; and
wherein the processor further executes code to provide a request for amendment (RFA) utility that enables a user to initiate and execute amendments to add, remove, and modify legal entities from existing trading agreements with other subscribers to the networked onboarding system.
With regard to claim 8 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
A networked onboarding system, comprising:
data storage storing a set of entity data and a plurality of document templates each defining a legal agreement between two or more entities; and
a request for amendment (RFA) module running on an application box communicatively linked to the data storage, the application box comprising a processor, wherein the RFA module automatically generates by the processor, an amendment letter using one of the document templates and in response to receipt of an onboarding request from an operator of a client device communicatively linked over a communications network to the application box, and wherein the RFA module transmits, by the processor, over the communications network, the amendment letter to the operator of the client device and prompts, in the graphical user interface of the client device the operator to review and execute the amendment letter;
wherein the RFA module enables, by the processor, the operator of the client device, in the graphical user interface, to initiate and execute amendments, to add, remove, and modify legal entities from existing trading agreements with other subscribers to the networked onboarding system.
With regard to claim 13, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
A networked onboarding system, comprising:
data storage storing a set of entity data and a plurality of onboarding documents;
a computing device with a processor, the computing device being communicatively linked to the data storage and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator and an RFA utility, wherein the onboarding accelerator:
commanding, by the processor, prompting a user of a client device communicatively coupled to the computing device to enter data in an entity onboarding form displayed on a graphical user interface of the computing device;
in response to the user entering the data, receiving, by the processor and from the client device, an upload one or more of the onboarding documents populated by the onboarding accelerator using the set of entity data and the data entered in the entity onboarding form;
receiving, by the processor, a relationship selection from the user; and determining, by the processor, whether there is an existing legal agreement for the relationship selected by the user;
determining, by the onboarding accelerator, who will be transacting on the account;
updating, by the onboarding accelerator, a relevant trading agreement based on the determination;
displaying, by the processor, in the graphical user interface of the computing device, an update to the relevant trading agreement, wherein the onboarding accelerator integrates entity data, document collection, KYC (know your customer) and tax profile validation, regulatory protocols and self-declarations, legal and credit agreements, and operational set up;
wherein the RFA utility is called when the existing legal agreement is identified and, in response, generates, by the processor, a request for amendment associated with the existing legal agreement; and
wherein the RFA utility enables a user to initiate and execute amendments to add, remove, and modify legal entities from existing trading agreements with other subscribers to the networked onboarding system.
The above limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are reciting a method of organizing human activity because the claim is reciting concepts relating to the managing of transactions between people. MPEP 2106.04. Specifically, the claim relates to the onboarding process for a new client. The claim recites collecting and processing entity/account information, uploading and converting document templates, populating onboarding requests, generating and updating amendment letters, sending notifications to relevant parties and enabling the execution of agreements. As noted in [0002] of the Specification, “Client onboarding is a process by which a market participant determines via examination of related risks whether or not it wishes to do business with a counterparty.” Further, the claims recite a “fundamental economic practice.” Similar to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014), the claims recite steps to mitigate risks. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)–(C). These are activities that are part of managing contracts and business relations, and thus fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas.
Additionally, the claimed steps of commanding the prompting receipt of data, entering data, processing information that is received, populating a request, transmitting the request, generating letters, and prompting signatures can be performed mentally by a person using pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claims are similar to Electric Power Group, which held that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Like Electric Power Group, the claims here are collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results, all of which are recited at a high level of generality. Despite the using “a graphical user interface”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” Here, the claimed concept is performed on a generic computer device and the abstract idea merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the onboarding process. Therefore, the claimed abstract idea is also considered to be reciting a mental process type of abstract idea. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the examiner considers whether claims 1, 8 and 13 recites any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements claimed are a GUI, a data storage, a computing device with a processor the computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the claimed steps, an RFA module running on an application box communicate linked to the data storage, a client device communicate linked over a communications network to the application box, an RF utility and a processor that carries out the claimed functionality. The examiner finds that the claimed additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not seem to amount to more than being used to implement the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2); see, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (appending a limitation that the process be aided or performed by a generic computer does not “salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process”). As evidenced by the specification, these are generic devices used to perform generic computer functions. [0020] (describes “Fig. 1 illustrates an exemplary cloud-based or networked onboarding system 100 with an onboarding accelerator 154 and RFA module/utility 156 of the present description. It will be understood by those skilled in the arts that the system 100 may take a variety of forms to implement the data processing and networked communication features, with the system 100 only being one useful but non-limiting example. As shown, the system 100 is a computer architecture that is useful for supporting a request for onboarding (RFO) within an existing but modified know-your-client (KYC) infrastructure.”). [0021] describes a generic GUI expressly stating “The systems/device 110 may take the form of nearly any computing device with one or more monitors and/or input/output (I/O) devices to allow the users 102 to interact with onboarding and amendment date such as via a displayed GUI(s) and a touchscreen, a mouse, a keyboard, and voice input components.” Thus, it is clear that the additional elements claimed do not improve the functioning of computers or technology, they do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition, they do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine integral to the claims and they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. Rather, Thus, Applicant’s claims do not contain additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
If the claims are not integrated into a judicial exception, the Examiner must consider whether there is “significantly more” recited in the claim in step 2B. As noted above, Applicant has primarily recited generic computer technology for performing the steps of the invention. Thus, Applicant's claims merely recite a computer to implement the abstract idea, which fails to provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). As the MPEP states, Examiners may consider the following three factors when determining whether the claim recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: 1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; 2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and 3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applying those factors to the instant application: 1) the claims do not recite how the computer performs any of the steps; 2) the claims invoke the computer to perform an abstract process of client onboarding; and 3) the claims are general and not recited in much particularity.
The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishment of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more;” rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent Claims 1, 8 and 13. Therefore, Claims 1- 20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered and are responded to herein. In the remarks, Applicant specifically addresses the following:
35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive. The relevant question under Prong Two is not whether the claimed invention or subject matter itself is a practical application; instead, the question is whether the claim includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, the Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claims is not on a specific improvement in computer technology but rather on a scheme, i.e., providing an enhanced and streamlined onboarding of new clients or accounts and processing of legal amendment letters in a way that manages risk and provides full regulatory compliance. This scheme qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as tools. As noted above, the claims, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are reciting a method of organizing human activity because the claim is reciting concepts relating to the managing of transactions between people. MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, the claim relates to the onboarding process for a new client. The claim recites collecting and processing entity/account information, uploading and converting document templates, populating onboarding requests, generating and updating amendment letters, sending notifications to relevant parties and enabling the execution of agreements. As noted in [0002] of the Specification, “Client onboarding is a process by which a market participant determines via examination of related risks whether or not it wishes to do business with a counterparty.” Further, the claims recite a “fundamental economic practice.” Similar to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014), the claims recite steps to mitigate risks. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)–(C). These are activities that are part of managing contracts and business relations, and thus fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas.
Additionally, the claims are directed to analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, without more, are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1, 8 and 13 recites collecting information, processing/analyzing information, and transmitting information, which is an abstract idea. The commanding, receiving and prompting steps relate to data collection, the processing, converting, populating and generating relate to data processing, the generation of notifications and transmitting steps relate to data transmission and the storing step relates to data storage.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
614
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
]
PNG
media_image2.png
421
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Remarks, pgs. 10-11).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments set forth by Applicant are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. When addressing Step 2A, Prong Two, the examiner considers any additional elements recited in the claim along with the limitations that recite an abstract idea to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 13 recites the additional elements of a GUI, a data storage, a computing device with a processor the computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the claimed steps, an RFA module running on an application box communicate linked to the data storage, a client device communicate linked over a communications network to the application box, an RF utility and a processor that carries out the claimed functionality. That is, the GUI to receive and display data related to the onboarding. The processor computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the claimed steps, an RFA module running on an application box communicate linked to the data storage executing code to perform the claimed functionality, including obtaining data, processing data, transmitting data (i.e., the abstract idea), a data storage including the database that stores data and the plurality of client devices via a digital communication network for data gathering, transmission and display. These additional elements are broadly recited in the specification. In other words they are merely generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computerized device nor improve another technology or technical process.
In Applicant’s arguments, the focus appears to be on the graphical user interface, which Applicant claims reflects a “technical solution to a technical problem—namely managing complex, multi-entity trading relationships across a dynamic onboarding framework. (Remarks, pg.10). The specification generically describes the GUI. [0021] (describes “The systems/device 110 may take the form of nearly any computing device with one or more monitors and/or input/output (I/O) devices to allow the users 102 to interact with onboarding and amendment date such as via a displayed GUI(s) and a touchscreen, a mouse, a keyboard, and voice input components.”); [0033] (describes “information may be provided in a GUI or other manner by the user for processing by the onboarding accelerator 154”); [0036] (describes “prompting the user (e.g., via a displayed GUI)”); [0018] (describes “Throughout such a process, the receivers of the onboarding requests can then provide transparency (e.g., to the originator of the onboarding request) as to which steps of onboarding are complete, in progress, or rejected as this information can be made visible to the sender of the onboarding request (e.g., in a graphical user interface (GUI) created and presented on one of their client devices communicatively linked to the onboard accelerator”). Thus, although Applicant alleges that the GUI improves the way users interact with the onboarding system and manage the complex legal and regulatory obligations, the GUI is merely a generic computer component that is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there is no persuasive support that it improves the functioning of any computerized device nor improves another technology or technical process.
Applicant’s argues that claim 1 is similar to Example 37 and Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The examiner finds this argument to also be unpersuasive, as such arguments are mere allegations without specifically explaining why the claims are analogous to the present claims at hand. In Example 37, the USPTO’s Guidance states that the combination of additional elements recited in a method claim for rearranging icons on GUI, as a whole, integrates an abstract mental process into a practical application, and thus is eligible under § 101. Claim 1 in Example 37, as a whole, integrates the mental process into a practical application because “the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” (Example 37). This is distinguished from Applicant’s claims, which recite no particular user interface function besides displaying data and data input on a generic user interface, i.e., merely a user interface being used in its ordinary capacity for simply displaying and gathering data. As such, the claims fail to improve the functioning of either the computing devices or the user interface. Rather, these components merely apply or link the underlying abstract idea (i.e., the mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) to a particular technological environment.
In Example 42, the claim was considered patent eligible, because of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application:
PNG
media_image3.png
293
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(USPTO, Example 42). There is no non-standardized format data being input into a graphical user interface in the present claim set. Instead, an uploaded document template is being converted into a standardized digital format. Applicant’s claims are more similar to Claim 2 of Example 47, which was determined to be ineligible. Similar to Claim 2 of Example 47 Applicant’s claims do not provide any details about how the system operates or how the converting steps are performed. Thus, Applicants argument’s that the GUI is an improvement is not persuasive.
Next, Applicant sets forth similar arguments with respect to claim 8. Applicant specifically argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
285
575
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
684
561
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Remarks. Pgs. 11-12). As noted in above, the arguments set forth by Applicant are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. When addressing Step 2A, Prong Two, the examiner considers any additional elements recited in the claim along with the limitations that recite an abstract idea to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 13 recites the additional elements of a GUI, a data storage, a computing device with a processor the computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the claimed steps, an RFA module running on an application box communicate linked to the data storage, a client device communicate linked over a communications network to the application box, an RF utility and a processor that carries out the claimed functionality. That is, the GUI to receive and display data related to the onboarding. The processor computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the claimed steps, an RFA module running on an application box communicate linked to the data storage executing code to perform the claimed functionality, including obtaining data, processing data, transmitting data (i.e., the abstract idea), a data storage including the database that stores data and the plurality of client devices via a digital communication network for data gathering, transmission and display. These additional elements are broadly recited in the specification. In other words they are merely generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computerized device nor improve another technology or technical process.
In Applicant’s arguments, the focus appears to be on the graphical user interface, which Applicant claims improves the functionality of onboarding workflows. In the arguments, Applicant points to specific case law, however, does not provide any arguments supporting how such case law is applicable to the claims at hand. Thus, such arguments are general allegations of eligibility and are not considered to be persuasive. Applicant’s arguments themselves get to the issue at hand. As stated expressly by the Applicant, “claim 8 recites an improvement to the user experience and legal process integration with a networked onboarding system.” (Remarks, pg. 12). Thus, the claims reflect an improvement to a business process, not to the functioning of any computerized device nor improve another technology or technical process. With regard to the arguments related to the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, those arguments have been addressed above.
With regard to claim 13, Applicant unpersuasively argues: the arguments set forth by Applicant are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. When addressing Step 2A, Prong Two, the examiner considers any additional elements recited in the claim along with the limitations that recite an abstract idea to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 13 recites the additional elements of a GUI, a data storage, a computing device with a processor the computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the claimed steps, an RFA module running on an application box communicate linked to the data storage, a client device communicate linked over a communications network to the application box, an RF utility and a processor that carries out the claimed functionality. That is, the GUI to receive and display data related to the onboarding. The processor computing device being communicatively linked to a plurality of client devices via a digital communication network and the processor executing code to provide an onboarding accelerator performing the claimed steps, an RFA module running on an application box communicate linked to the data storage executing code to perform the claimed functionality, including obtaining data, processing data, transmitting data (i.e., the abstract idea), a data storage including the database that stores data and the plurality of client devices via a digital communication network for data gathering, transmission and display. These additional elements are broadly recited in the specification. In other words they are merely generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computerized device nor improve another technology or technical process.
In Applicant’s arguments, the focus appears to be on the graphical user interface, which Applicant claims improves the functionality of onboarding workflows. In the arguments, Applicant points to specific case law, however, does not provide any arguments supporting how such case law is applicable to the claims at hand. Thus, such arguments are general allegations of eligibility and are not considered to be persuasive. Applicant’s arguments themselves get to the issue at hand. As stated expressly by the Applicant, the improvement is “how onboarding and amendments are initiated, reviewed, and executed. . . significantly improving how users engaged with complex document and entity data.” (Remarks, pg. 13). Thus, the claims reflect an improvement to a business process, not to the functioning of any computerized device nor improve another technology or technical process. With regard to the arguments related to the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, those arguments have been addressed above.
Applicant has not provided anything more than general allegations with respect to Step 2B. As noted in the rejection,
PNG
media_image6.png
714
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
428
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Remarks, pgs. 13-14). Applicant’s arguments are substantially similar to the arguments set forth for claims 1 and 8. As noted above, Applicant has primarily recited generic computer technology for performing the steps of the invention. Thus, Applicant's claims merely recite a computer to implement the abstract idea, which fails to provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). As the MPEP states, Examiners may consider the following three factors when determining whether the claim recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: 1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; 2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and 3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applying those factors to the instant application: 1) the claims do not recite how the computer performs any of the steps; 2) the claims invoke the computer to perform an abstract process of client onboarding; and 3) the claims are general and not recited in much particularity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE MEYERS SHANKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 10:00am- 6:00pm 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, Nate C Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
JULIE MEYERS. SHANKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/JULIE M SHANKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626