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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in reply to the action filed on 23 of October 2025.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the disabling of the entry of certain information based on the input selection prevents the storage of unnecessary data, i.e., leads to smaller memory requirements. Applicant accordingly respectfully submits that the systems and methods of present claims 1, 9 and 15 are patent eligible because they have a technological benefit stated in the specification which is consistent with Enfish's stated advantage of smaller memory requirements and which is reflected in the present claim language. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, the court distinguished between claims that focus on a specific improvement in computer capabilities, on the one hand, and an abstract idea that merely implements computers as tools, on the other. Contrary to applicant’s argument, this case is unlike Enfish. In contrast to Enfish, claims 1, 9, and 15 do no more than use instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. There is no improvement to technology since storing unnecessary data stems from collecting less data when the user selects to create a quote based on fixed fee, the system disables entry of the hours worked, see ¶72. A human can observe the difference between an hourly worker and a fixed fee worker and make appropriate entries on a paper log or a computer log. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("But the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem."); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[S]electing certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis" is abstract); In re Gale, 85 6 F. App 'x 887, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("We also disagree with Mr. Gale's argument that his claims are not abstract simply because they include measurements that are 'fed into a computer that repeatedly recalculates [an output]."') (citation omitted). Accordingly, the examiner determines that claims 1, 9, and 15, when considered as a whole, lacks additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant asserts that similar to Data Engine Technologies, the claimed system and method provide a specific interface and implementation which provides rapid access to and processing of information in different circumstances. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In data Engine, the method provides a specific solution to then-existing technological problems in computers and prior art electronic spreadsheets. The Tab Patents solved this known technological problem in computers in a particular way — by providing a highly intuitive, user-friendly interface with familiar notebook tabs for navigating the three-dimensional worksheet environment. Id. at col. 3 ll. 44-52. The improvement allowed computers, for the first time, to provide rapid access to and processing of information in different spreadsheets, as well as easy navigation in three-dimensional spreadsheets. In contrast, and as cited above there is no improvement to technology in the instant application. The claim recitation does not impose "a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The examiner finds no indication in the Specification, nor does applicant direct the examiner to any indication, that the operations recited in claims 1, 9, and 15 invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent eligible."). The examiner also finds no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor does the examiner finds anything of record, short of attorney argument, that attributes any improvement in computer technology and/or functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a "practical application," as that phrase is used in the revised Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Applicant asserts that similar to Amdocs, the present claims are restricted to use of a narrowly claimed input selection that enables a user to create the client billing quote based on hours worked or fixed fee, in combination with many other elements that narrowly claim a very specific system and method for generating a client billing quote which accounts for diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations. The examiner respectfully disagrees and points to already disclosed arguments to support his rationale. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
At Step 1 the claims fall under one of the four statutory categories. The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 15 recites “at least one memory configured to store member data for a plurality of available members eligible to be placed on a team, the member data relating to two or more categories including at least one of (i) cultural diversity, (ii) gender diversity, (iii) LGBT+ inclusivity, (iv) disability inclusivity, and (v) initiative and accommodation; at least one processor programmed to generating a first graphical user interface on a first user terminal that includes an input selection that enables a user to create the client billing quote based on hours worked or fixed fee; generate a second graphical user interface on the first user terminal that enables the user to create the team from the plurality of available members using a team icon and automatically disable an ability to enter certain information on the second graphical user interface based on the input selection chosen by the user; upon selection of the team icon, automatically create the team including a plurality of team members, retrieve division data regarding a division of work between the plurality of team members, and display each of the plurality of team members on the graphical user interface along with at least a work allocation for each available member; calculate at least one a plurality of grades or scores based on the member data for team members of the team; display a ratings panel directly on the graphical user interface of the first user terminal, the ratings panel including the plurality of grades or scores; retrieve availability data for additional available members eligible to be placed on the team, determine that a new team member of the additional members has availability to perform the work allocation assigned to an existing team member of the plurality of team members, recalculate the at least one plurality of grades or scores using member data for the new team member in place of the existing team member, determine that the recalculated at least one plurality of grades or scores satisfies satisfy the predetermined threshold, present the new team member on the graphical user interface of the first user terminal in place of the existing team member to facilitate meeting the predetermined threshold, the new team member not being a member of the team initially presented on the graphical user interface; and display the ratings panel directly on the graphical user interface of the first user terminal with the plurality of grades or scores for the new team which satisfies the predetermined threshold; and generate the client billing quote including the at least one score or plurality of grades or scores which satisfies satisfy the predetermined threshold, the user setting the predetermined threshold based on the client, and the user assigning weights to each of the two or more categories”. Claims 1 and 9 disclose similar limitations as Claim 15 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” such as calculating a score and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” such as generating a client billing quote as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 12-14, and 18-20 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 9, and 15 do 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 an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These are generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶58 “As illustrated, each of the plurality of user terminals 14 includes one or more user input device 38, a display 40, a peripheral interface 42, one or more other output device 44, and a network interface 46 in communication with the terminal processor 30. The user input device 38 can include any mechanism for providing a user input to the terminal processor 30, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, a microphone and/or suitable voice recognition application, or another input mechanism. The display 40 can include any conventional display mechanism such as a cathode ray tube (CRT), a flat panel display, a touch screen, or another display mechanism. Thus, as can be understood, the user input device 38 and/or the display 40 and/or any other suitable element can be considered a GUI 25. The peripheral interface 42 can include the hardware, firmware, and/or other software necessary for communication with various peripheral devices, such as media drives (e.g., magnetic disk or optical disk drives), other processing devices, or another input source used as described herein. Likewise, the other output device 44 can optionally include similar media drive mechanisms, other processing devices or other output destinations capable of providing information to a user of the user terminal l 4, such as speakers, LEDs, tactile outputs, etc. The network interface 46 can comprise hardware, firmware and/or software that allows the terminal processor 30 to communicate with other devices via wired or wireless networks 16, whether local or wide area, private or public. For example, such networks 16 can include the World Wide Web or Internet, or private enterprise networks, or the like.”
As a result, claims 1, 9, and 15 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Further, additional elements for displaying scores and storing data (italicized and underscored above) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the elements reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional data retrieval and transmission functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 12-14, and 18-20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 12/16/2025