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 .
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is cancelled per applicant’s filing of 02/27/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 18 are amended.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18 have been examined.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 09/12/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant submits the amended claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and under the two-part Alice/Mayo framework set forth in USPTO’s Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Applicant contends, under Step 2A, Prong One, the amended claims are not directed to the general concept of "franchising” and they recite a specific, multi-step, automated technical process implemented by a special purpose computing device that executes defined computing modules to manage the entire lifecycle of electronic licenses, from lead qualification, through electronic approval, automatic license generation and distribution, granting of platform access and asset access, real-time compliance monitoring via continuous collection, tracking, and persistent storage of sales and distribution data in a database or storage structure, automatic license termination upon detection of noncompliance over a defined period, and dynamic cessation of monitoring for terminated entities to reallocate computing resources. Furthermore, applicant contends, under Step 2B, the claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite a specific ordered combination of elements (e.g., the execution of specialized computing modules on a special purpose computing device to automate multi-step lead processing, electronic approval and license distribution, granting of platform access, real-time compliance monitoring with persistent data storage in a database or storage structure, automatic license termination, and dynamic monitoring cessation) that is not conventional, routine, or well-understood in the art.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A, Prong One analysis (MPEP 2106), the amended claim 1, as representative, recites franchising, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the amended claim 1 continues to recite “obviating manual license generation and termination…the obviating of the manual license generation and terminal comprising:” “receiving…a plurality of lead identifiers;” “ determining…whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by each lead identifier of the plurality of the lead identifiers;” “sending an electronic approval request for each lead identifier that has satisfied the one or more lead requirements;” “receiving….an answer responding to each electronic approval request;” “automatically forwarding…an electronic license and distribution request to a plurality of entities, wherein each of the plurality of entities comprises an entity associated with a lead identifier for which an answer has been received…” “for each of the plurality of entities having an electronic license, granting access…and to one or more tangible or intangible assets associated with the electronic license:” “monitoring each of the plurality of entities, wherein the monitoring comprises:” “collecting and tracking…sales and distribution data associated with each entity associated with a lead identifier,” “populating…with the sales and distribution data, and” “determining, for each entity of the plurality of entities,…based on the sales and distribution data, whether the entity has complied with one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license; and” “for each entity of the plurality of entities that fails to meet the one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license for a period of time, automatically terminating the electronic license,” “wherein: the monitoring comprises monitoring a status of the electronic license for the plurality of entities, having an electronic license,” and “when an electronic license has been terminated for an entity, the monitoring the status of the electronic license is no longer performed for that entity,” the claim, as a whole, is directed to franchising which is a method of organizing human activity and abstract idea. This involves a process of managing lifecycle of franchise licensing, from qualification, approval, license distribution, monitoring franchise license compliance with collection, tracking and recording of sales and distribution data, and terminating franchise license based on the monitoring. These steps describe a process of franchising. This is a commercial or legal interactions, therefore, falls within a certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea.
Under Prong Two, Step Two analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements, “a management platform,” “a special purpose computing device comprising at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “one database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive,” “at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections between the special purpose computing device and one or more remote entities,” and “executing, by the processor, one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprises a lead and license management module and a sales, distribution and appointment management module,” merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are not more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of franchising. The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when analyzed under step 2B. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05 (f)&(h)).
With respect to applicant’s remark on pages 10 and 11, applicant contends that the amended claims recite the execution of specific computing modules (e.g., "a lead and license management module and a sales, distribution and appointment management module") stored in memory and executed by a processor and paragraphs [0023]-[0025] of the specification, and the specific purpose computing device further comprises “at least one database, data table, cache, or storage device” with the monitoring step includes "populating the at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive with the sales and distribution data" and paragraph [0026] of the specification. Examiner notes, however, that the elements, “executing, by the processor, one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales, distribution and appointment management module” and “at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive,” merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are not more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea involving a process of licensing, distribution and sales lifecycle of franchising including populating the sales and distribution data. Also, the elements (‘one or more computing modules’, ‘one database, data table, cache, or storage drive’) do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, a database, data table, cache, or storage drive, or to any other technology or technical field.
With respect to applicant’s remark on page 16, applicant contends “The claimed system does not merely automate a pre-existing business process on a generic computer. Rather, the claims recite a specific technical architecture (e.g., defined computing modules, specific data storage structures, multi-entity networked communications, closed-loop compliance monitoring with persistent data storage, automated enforcement, and dynamic resource optimization) that together produce improvements to the functioning of the management platform itself. These improvements are not improvements to the business of franchising. Rather, they are improvements to how the computing system operates, including its throughput, efficiency, resource utilization, and reliability… at paragraphs [0020]-[0026], which describe the specific technical architecture of the management platform and its improvements to the technological field of automated license management, and through the present amendments, which incorporate these specific technical features directly into the claims”. Examiner notes, however, that the additional elements, “a management platform,” “a special purpose computing device comprising at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “one database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive,” “at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections between the special purpose computing device and one or more remote entities,” and “executing, by the processor, one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales, distribution and appointment management module” merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are not more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, these additional elements perform(s) the steps such as “obviating manual license generation and termination…the obviating of the manual license generation and terminal comprising:” “receiving…a plurality of lead identifiers;” “ determining…whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by each lead identifier of the plurality of the lead identifiers;” “sending an electronic approval request for each lead identifier that has satisfied the one or more lead requirements;” “receiving….an answer responding to each electronic approval request;” “automatically forwarding…an electronic license and distribution request to a plurality of entities, wherein each of the plurality of entities comprises an entity associated with a lead identifier for which an answer has been received…” “for each of the plurality of entities having an electronic license, granting access…and to one or more tangible or intangible assets associated with the electronic license:” “monitoring each of the plurality of entities, wherein the monitoring comprises:” “collecting and tracking…sales and distribution data associated with each entity associated with a lead identifier,” “populating…with the sales and distribution data, and” “determining, for each entity of the plurality of entities,…based on the sales and distribution data, whether the entity has complied with one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license; and” “for each entity of the plurality of entities that fails to meet the one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license for a period of time, automatically terminating the electronic license,” “wherein: the monitoring comprises monitoring a status of the electronic license for the plurality of entities, having an electronic license,” and “when an electronic license has been terminated for an entity, the monitoring the status of the electronic license is no longer performed for that entity.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B, the additional element(s) of using “a management platform,” “a special purpose computing device comprising at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “one database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive,” “at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections between the special purpose computing device and one or more remote entities,” and “executing, by the processor, one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales, distribution and appointment management module” to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of franchising. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform(s) the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of franchising. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to applicant’s remark regarding Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (self-referential database table that improved computer functioning was not abstract), Examiner notes, however, that the instant claims are not in any way similar to Enfish (Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp) as the claims do not improve the function of the computer itself by providing increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements (Enfish at 1690). Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark regarding McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (automated lip-synchronization using specific rules was not abstract), Examiner notes, however, that the instant claims are also not similar to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., as the instant claims do not make any technological improvement to any algorithm in performing improvement to animation techniques. On the other hand, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’ remark regarding Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (security profile that enabled virus scanning to provide more useful information was not abstract), Examiner notes, however, that the claims are not similar to Finjan v Blue Coat System because the case of Finjan is clearly not applicable to the instant claims, as in Finjan where court determined that using the security profile in a particular way to enable more flexible virus filtering and greater user customization and, further, security profile enables the invention to protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and obfuscated code as compared to traditional virus scanning. On the other hand, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark regarding Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improved user interface for electronic devices was not abstract), Examiner notes, however, that the claims are not similar to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. because the case of Core is clearly not applicable to the instant claims, as in Core where court determined that the claims described a specific, functional improvement to graphical user interfaces on small-screen devices. On the other hand, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark related to “Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit found eligible a specific method of restricting software operation within a license (a case that is particularly relevant here because the present claims similarly recite a specific method of managing and enforcing electronic licenses through a defined computing architecture)”, Examiner notes, however, that the claims are not similar to Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc. because the case of Ancora is clearly not applicable to the instant claims, as in Ancora where court determined “Improving security—here, against a computer’s unauthorized use of a program—can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem. The claimed method here specifically identifies how that functionality improvement is effectuated in an assertedly unexpected way: a structure containing a license record is stored in a particular, modifiable, non-volatile portion of the computer’s BIOS, and the structure in that memory location is used for verification by interacting with the distinct computer memory that contains the program to be verified.” On the other hand, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark related to BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and applicant’s remark regarding the claimed “populating” limitation operating as part of a closed-loop monitoring and enforcement ssytem, Examiner notes, however, that the claimed step of populating the at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive with the sales and distribution data merely populating sales and distribution data in the at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive, which is not an improvement in database, data table, cache or storage drive functionality and the step of populating sales and distribution data continues to recite the abstract idea of franchising but for the recitation of generic computer components (database, data table, cache or storage drive).
With respect applicant’s remark related to Example 47-Anomaly Detection (Remark page 17), applicant states “the specification description of MP120 as “a special purpose computer that improves the technological field of electronic lead recruiting, lead management, and automated license formation and/or termination” provides the required technical explanation.”
Examiner notes, however, that the claims are not similar to claim 3 of Example 47. Claim 3 of Example 47 was eligible based on limitations that provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measure to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potential malicious packets. The instant claims recite performing electronic lead recruiting, lead management, and automated license formation and/or termination, which is an abstract idea, and the claimed elements, “special purpose computing device comprising at least one processor, at least one memory, and at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more connections between the special purpose computing device and one or more remote entities,” and “one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales, distribution and appointment management module” are recited at a high level of generality such that the claims amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception to generic components. And the specification description of MP120 as “a special purpose computer that improves the technological field of electronic lead recruiting, lead management, and automated license formation and/or termination” merely serves a computer performing a process of managing lifecycle of franchise licensing, which is abstract idea.
With respect applicant’s remark related to Example 40-Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data (Remark page 18), applicant states “the present claims dynamically adjust the scope of monitoring based on license status, ceasing to monitor terminated entities to reduce unnecessary processing overhead.”
Examiner notes, however, that the instant claims are not similar and not analogous to claim 1 of Example 40. Claim 1 of Example 40 was eligible because, under Prong 2, Step 2A analysis, Claim 1 of Example 40 recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. On the other hand, the instant claimed invention recites the abstract idea of franchising, and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, under Prong Two, Step 2A, the additional elements, “a management platform,” “a special purpose computing device comprising at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “one database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive,” “at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections between the special purpose computing device and one or more remote entities,” and “executing, by the processor, one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales, distribution and appointment management module” merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are not more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, these additional elements perform(s) the steps such as “obviating manual license generation and termination…the obviating of the manual license generation and terminal comprising:” “receiving…a plurality of lead identifiers;” “ determining…whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by each lead identifier of the plurality of the lead identifiers;” “sending an electronic approval request for each lead identifier that has satisfied the one or more lead requirements;” “receiving….an answer responding to each electronic approval request;” “automatically forwarding…an electronic license and distribution request to a plurality of entities, wherein each of the plurality of entities comprises an entity associated with a lead identifier for which an answer has been received…” “for each of the plurality of entities having an electronic license, granting access…and to one or more tangible or intangible assets associated with the electronic license:” “monitoring each of the plurality of entities, wherein the monitoring comprises:” “collecting and tracking…sales and distribution data associated with each entity associated with a lead identifier,” “populating…with the sales and distribution data, and” “determining, for each entity of the plurality of entities,…based on the sales and distribution data, whether the entity has complied with one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license; and” “for each entity of the plurality of entities that fails to meet the one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license for a period of time, automatically terminating the electronic license,” “wherein: the monitoring comprises monitoring a status of the electronic license for the plurality of entities, having an electronic license,” and “when an electronic license has been terminated for an entity, the monitoring the status of the electronic license is no longer performed for that entity.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark related to Example 46-Livestock Management (Remark page 18), applicant states “In Example 46, claim 3 was found eligible because it collected animal-specific data, analyzed it for aberrant behavioral patterns, and then automatically operated a sorting gate based on the results. The USPTO found that this automatic gate operation was an "other meaningful limitation" that integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. The present claims follow the same structure: the management platform collects and tracks sales and distribution data, analyzes compliance with license terms, and then automatically takes enforcement action (terminating licenses) and automatically adjusts system behavior (ceasing monitoring) based on those results. Like the automatic gate operation in Example 46, the present claims' automatic license termination and monitoring cessation are integral parts of a closed-loop system, which is not mere post-solution activity.”
Examiner notes, however, that, the instant claimed invention recites the abstract idea of franchising, and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See the Prong Two, Step 2A analysis provided previously.
With respect to applicant’s remark (page 18) stating “The claims recite a specific ordered combination of elements (e.g, the execution of specialized computing modules on a special purpose computing device to automate multi-step lead processing, electronic approval and license distribution, granting of platform access, real-time compliance monitoring with persistent data storage in a database or storage structure, automatic license termination, and dynamic monitoring cessation) that is not conventional, routine, or well-understood in the art”, Examiner notes that apart from the limitations that recite the abstract idea of franchising involving managing lifecycle of franchise licensing, from qualification, approval, license distribution, monitoring franchise license compliance with collection, tracking and recording of sales and distribution data, as well as terminating franchise license, the only other additional elements recited in the claims merely server as tools to automate the abstract idea. Because judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty (See July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 3, Section III), and the additional elements are only tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, the additional elements do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112
Applicant’s amendments to claim 18 has not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). See analysis below.
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 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 7:
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-5, 7 are directed to a method (i.e. process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
obviating manual license generation and termination, via a management platform comprising a special purpose computing device comprising at least one processor, at least one memory, at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive, and at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections between the special purpose computing device and one or more remote entities, the obviating of the manual license generation and terminal comprising
executing, by the processor, one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales, distributed and appointment management module;
receiving, at the management platform, a plurality of lead identifiers;
determining, at the management platform, whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by each lead identifier of the plurality of lead identifiers;
sending, by the management platform, an electronic approval request for each of the lead identifier that has satisfied the one or more lead requirements;
receiving, at the management platform, an answer responding to each electronic approval request; and
automatically forwarding, by the management platform, an electronic license and distribution request to a plurality of entities, wherein each of the plurality of entities comprises an entity associated with a lead identifier for which an answer has been received by the management platform;
for each of the plurality of entities having an electronic license, granting access to the management platform and to one or more tangible or intangible assets associated with the electronic license:
monitoring each of the plurality of entities, wherein the monitoring comprises:
collecting and tracking, at the management platform, sales and distribution data associated with each entity associated with a lead identifier; and
populating, the at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive with the sales and distribution data, and
determining, for each entity of the plurality of entities, at the management platform, based on the sales and distribution data, whether the entity has complied with one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license; and
for each entity of the plurality of entities that fails the lead identifier fails to meet the one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license for a period of time, automatically terminating the electronic license,
wherein the monitoring comprises monitoring a status of the electronic license for the plurality of entities, having an electronic license, and
when an electronic license has been terminated for an entity, the monitoring the status of the electronic license is no longer performed for that entity.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, claim 1 recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional element(s) of “a management platform,” “a special purpose computing device comprising at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “one database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive,” “at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections”, and “executing, by the processor, one or more computing modules stored in the memory,” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the additional elements of “the one or more computing modules comprises a lead and license management module and a sales, distributed and appointment management module,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of computing modules and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the obviating further comprises receiving, at the management platform, an indication that an initial lead requirement has been fulfilled by each entity of the plurality of entities.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 2 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the obviating further comprises receiving and processing, at the management platform, an initial request for distribution of goods or services.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 3 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the obviating further comprises receiving, at the management platform, a calendar request, and scheduling, by the management platform, an appointment for each entity of the plurality of entities.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 4 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the obviating further comprises periodically reporting, by the management platform, sales and distribution data associated with each entity of the plurality of entities.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 5 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the obviating further comprises, prior to automatically terminating the electronic license, transmitting, by the management platform, a warning message to the entity associated with the lead identifier in the event the entity associated with the lead identifier fails to meet the one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 7 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9-11, 13-16:
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 9-11, 13-16 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 9 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a management platform comprising a special purpose computing device, the special purpose computing device comprising:
at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections between the special purpose computing device and one or more remote entities;
at least one processor;
at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive; and
at least one memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, are configured to cause the processor, to obviate manual license generation and termination by performing the steps of:
executing one or more computing modules stored in the memory for receiving a plurality of lead identifiers,
the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales, distributed and appointment management module;
determining whether one or more lead requirements have been completed by each lead identifier of the plurality of lead identifiers;
triggering transmission of electronic approval requests for each lead identifier, of the plurality of lead identifiers, that has satisfied the one or more lead requirements;
receiving answers to the electronic approval requests; and
automatically forwarding an electronic license and distribution request to a plurality of entities, wherein each of the plurality of entities comprises an entity associated with a lead identifier for which an answer has been received by the management platform;
for each of the plurality of entities, having an electronic license, granting access to the management platform and to one or more tangible or intangible assets associated with the electronic license;
monitoring each of the plurality of entities, wherein the monitoring comprises:
collecting and tracking sales and distribution data associated with each entity associated with a lead identifier; and
populating, the at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive with the sales and distribution data, and
determining, for each entity of the plurality of entities, based on the sales and distribution data, whether the entity has complied with one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license; and
for each entity of the plurality of entities that fails to meet the one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license for a period of time, automatically terminating the electronic license, wherein:
the monitoring comprises monitoring a status of the electronic license for the plurality of entities, having an electronic license, and
when an electronic license has been terminated for the entity, the monitoring the status of the electronic license is no longer performed for that entity.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, claim 9 recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a management platform comprising special purpose computing device,” “at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections,” “at least one processor,” “one or more computing modules stored in the memory,” “at least one memory configured to store instructions,” “executing one or more computing modules stored in the memory,” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the additional elements of “the one or more computing modules comprises a lead and license management module and a sales, distributed and appointment management module,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of computing modules and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 9, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 10-16
Claim 10 recites additional details (i.e. names or telephone numbers associated with a plurality of leads’ of the lead identifier) of the plurality of lead identifiers. Claim 11 recites additional details (i.e. a first lead requirement) of the one or more lead requirements. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor, to obviate the manual license generation and termination by performing the step of populating the database, the data table, the cache, or the storage drive with sales, order, and/or distribution data.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 13 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor to obviate the manual license generation and termination by performing the step of populating the database, the data table, the cache, or the storage drive with customer data.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 14 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor to obviate the manual license generation and termination by performing the step of scheduling appointments for licensees.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 15 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor to obviate the manual license generation and termination by performing the step of sending reminders regarding the scheduled appointments.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 16 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18:
Step 1
In the instant case, claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. manufacture). Therefore, the claim falls within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 18 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising
at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more connections between the computing device and one or more remote entities;
at least one processor;
at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive; and
at least one memory having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are configured to cause the processor to obviate manual license generating and termination by performing the steps of:
executing one or more computing modules stored in the memory, the one or more computing modules comprising a lead and license management module and a sales distribution and appointment management module;
receiving a plurality of lead identifiers;
determining satisfaction of one or more lead requirements by each lead identifier of the plurality of lead identifiers;
triggering transmission of an electronic approval request for each lead identifier that has satisfied the one or more lead requirements;
receiving an answer to each electronic approval request;
automatically forwarding an electronic license and distribution request to a plurality of entities, wherein each entity, of the plurality of entities, comprises an entity associated with a lead identifier for which an answer has been received;
monitoring each of the plurality of entities, wherein the monitoring comprises:
collecting and tracking sales and distribution data associated with each entity associated with a lead identifier;
populating, the at least one database, data table, cache, or storage drive with the sales and distribution data; and
determining, for each entity, based on the sales and distribution data, whether the entity has complied with one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license; and
for each entity that fails to meet the one or more terms and conditions of the electronic license for a period of time, automatically terminating the electronic license,
wherein the monitoring comprises ceasing monitoring for any entities, of the plurality of entities, for which the license has been terminated.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, claim 18 recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a computing device,” “at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more connections,” “at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “one or more computing modules stored in the memory,” and “executing one or more computing modules stored in the memory,” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. With respect to the additional elements of “the one or more computing modules comprises a lead and license management module and a sales, distributed and appointment management module,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of computing modules and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 18, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claim 18 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising: at least one communications interface configured to establish one or more communication connections between the computing device and one or more remote entities; at least one processor; at least one database, data table, cache, or storage device; and at least one memory having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are configured to cause the processor to obviate manual license generating and termination by performing the steps of…” The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The specification (PGPub 2021/0398233) describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium is a storage medium (i.e. disk memory devices, chip memory devices, programmable logic device). (see at least paragraph [0008] of the specification). The specification does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a communications interface and a processor. Therefore, the claim is unclear because it is not in line with the specification. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fisher (US 2002/0188483A1) teaches an electronic system and method for Franchise, Finance, Real Estate and Supplier Management. Expedites the Franchise buying and selling process and provides: a shortened timeline; an integrated system for information; easing legal compliance; managing financing; managing real estate selection; and enhancing marketing.
Isbell (US 2009/0164280A1) teaches franchise administration system with automatic compliance monitoring and reporting features.
Amin (US 8090638A1) teaches agreement termination.
Ravagnani (US 20170053354A1) teaches licensing manager.
Mohr (US 2009/0006159A1) teaches managing sales leads.
Hsieh (US 2019/0385252A1) teaches lead management system for digital real-estate referrals.
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 CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM 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, JOHN W HAYES can be reached at (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697