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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 12/18/2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11 and 13-14 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12, 15-17 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims to overcome the 112(a) rejections. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections for claims in the office action on 09/18/2025.
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 1-10, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-10, 12 and 15-17 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Thus, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-10, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites: An authentication method for providing customizable property management services via a system to enable increased transparency and communication, allow for polling of voting matters associated with the property; comparing the credentials associated with the user to a predetermined credential to determine whether the credentials associated with the user meet or exceed the predetermined credentials; and the credentials associated with the user comprise an age of the user; associated with a user for access to the application associated with a property; authenticating,
an identity of the user based on the credentials; determining a user type associated with the user, via an authentication table, based on the identity of the authenticated user;
assigning an access level to governing documentation associated with the property such that only authorized users can access and view the governing documentation, wherein access to the governing documentation is controlled based on a permission level associated with the authenticated user; storing the guidelines or governing documentation associated with the property, wherein the documentation associated with the property for retrieval by authorized users; updating, the guidelines for future reference; associate the governing documentation with the authenticated user; and matching, wherein maintain relationships between user records and governing documentation records; wherein access to the governing documentation is enforced by permitting retrieval when the permission level associated with the authenticated user matches the permission level stored. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). As the claims discuss providing customizable property management services to enable increased transparency and communication, determining a user type associated with the user, comparing credentials associated with the user to determine whether the credentials associated with the user meet or exceed the predetermined credentials; and the credentials associated with the user comprise an age of the user, based on the identity of the user;
Further, dependent claims 2-10, 12, 15-17 have been fully analyzed for additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) a username and a password and identification method; (claim 3) wherein the identification method is selected from the group consisting of (claim 4) wherein the user type is selected from the group consisting of: an administrator, a home owner, a vendor or tenant, and a power user, (claim 5) wherein the user type comprises the administrator, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access (claim 6) wherein the user type comprises the home owner, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access; (claim 7) wherein the user type comprises the vendor or the tenant, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access (claim 8) wherein the user type comprises the power user, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access; (claim 9) send a first message to a first group of users and a second message to a second group of users, wherein the first message differs from the second message, and wherein the first group of users differs from the second group of users; (claim 10) easily connect and communicate with one or more other users; (claim 12) in response to determining that the credentials associated with the user meet or exceed the predetermined credentials, allowing the user to vote on an issue once; and transferring an identity of the user who voted, a time period when the user voted and the vote of the user; (claim 15) processing a payment from the user; (claim 16) receiving a payment from the user; and transferring the payment to service for processing; (claim 17) receiving a modification from the user to customize one or more features of the application; and executing the modification to provide a customized application for the user, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) computing device, database, login credentials, graphical user interface, low-code development platform, application, voting engine, a payment engine, and a web conferencing feature or module, a cryptographic processor, encryption/decryption, a cryptographic server; relational database; related tables; key field(s); rows, pivot points; primary keys; mobile device (claim 2) biometric identification (claim 3) fingerprint identification, facial recognition, palm print identification, iris recognition, and retina recognition. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-10, 12 and 15-17 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to 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. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balzamo, JR (US 2019/0096013 A1), hereinafter “Balzamo”, over Shiralkar et al. (US 10,979,225 B1), hereinafter “Shiralkar”.
Regarding Claim 1, Balzamo teaches an authentication method for providing customizable property management services via a system to enable increased transparency and communication, the system comprising at least an application executable on a computing device and a database, the method comprising: (Balzamo, Abstract, Systems and methods are provided for providing property management services… the method includes authenticating an identity of the user; para 0042, one or more suitable electronic devices, such as, e.g., a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, and/or any other suitable electronic device; the digital application acts as a management and client service platform that allows management companies to create a customizable transparent environment which provides to clients and customers a forum to interact and effectively communicate with all groups, members, and/or tenants in a virtual environment/space; para 0079, database);
receiving, via a graphical user interface (GUI) coupled to the computing device, login credentials associated with a user for access to the application associated with a property, (Balzamo, Abstract, The method includes receiving, using a graphical user interface coupled to an electronic device, login credentials for a user for access to a digital application for providing property management services) wherein the application comprises at least …, a payment engine, and a web conferencing feature or module; and (Balzamo, para 0017 and para 0059, payment functions; para 0072, users 705 are able to communication through group conferencing within the digital environment);
... associated with the property; (Balzamo, Abstract, teaches property management services);
the application is generated using a low-code development platform that allows modular configuration of property management services by authorized users; (see at least Balzamo, para 0029, providing property management services, wherein the digital application is configured to enable customization such that one or more functions of the digital application can be altered using a low-code development platform);
executing, via a cryptographic processor, an encryption request by a cryptographic server component to encrypt the login credentials associated with the user; (Balzamo, para 0080, cryptographic processor device; Balzamo, para 0120, A cryptographic server component is a stored program component that is executed by a CPU, cryptographic processor, cryptographic processor interface, cryptographic processor device, and/or the like. Cryptographic processor interfaces will allow for expedition of encryption and/or decryption requests. The cryptographic component may employ cryptographic techniques such as, but not limited to: digital certificates (e.g., X.509 authentication framework), digital signatures, dual signatures, enveloping, password access protection, public key management, and/or the like. The cryptographic component will facilitate numerous (encryption and/or decryption) security protocols such as, but not limited to: checksum, Data Encryption Standard (DES), Elliptical Curve Encryption (ECC), passwords… The cryptographic component may contain, communicate, generate, obtain, and/or provide program component, system, user, and/or data communications, requests, and/or responses. Examiner note: this is identical to Applicant’s own specification, pages 38-40);
authenticating, via the cryptographic server component, an identity of the user based on the login credentials; (Balzamo, para 0120, cryptographic server; Balzamo, Abstract, The method further includes authenticating, using a processor coupled to the electronic device, an identity of the user);
determining a user type associated with the user, via an authentication table, based on the identity of an authenticated user; (Balzamo, Abstract, an identity of the user, wherein the authenticating includes determining a user type for the user; para 0015, authentication table for use in authenticating the user);
assigning a permission level to the authenticated user, the permission level is associated with encrypted data retained in a database, wherein the database is a relational database; (Balzamo, para 0122, teaches relational databases; Balzamo, para 0120, cryptographic components; See at least Balzamo, para 0122-0125, discussing databases; Balzamo, para 0015, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the administrator user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of editing an authentication table for use in authenticating the user; editing service tickets; deleting service tickets; etc.; para 0016, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the power user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of creating announcements to be sent to one or more secondary users; editing the announcements; etc.; para 0017, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the home owner user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of: reading one or more announcements, etc.; para 0018, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the vendor user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of: reading one or more service tickets pertaining to one or more tasks to be completed. Examiner notes when access is granted to a user, the user is assigned a permission level that allows the user to perform certain actions, as described in Balzamo, para 0015-0018); decrypting, via the cryptographic server component, the encrypted data retained in the database based on the assigned permission level; (Balzamo, para 0120, cryptographic components… Cryptographic processor interfaces will allow for expedition of encryption and/or decryption requests by the cryptographic component… The cryptographic component allows for the encryption and/or decryption of provided data.);
granting the authenticated user access to the decrypted data of the application, based on the permission level of the authenticated user (Balzamo, Abstract, granting access to the user to a digital menu configured for the user type for the user; para 0120, Cryptographic processor interfaces will allow for expedition of encryption and/or decryption requests by the cryptographic component; The cryptographic component allows for the encryption and/or decryption of provided data; Examiner notes permission levels are described in Balzamo para 0015-0018 (as described above), as when access is granted to a user, the user is assigned a permission level that allows the user to perform certain actions);
responsive to access to the decrypted data, the … of the authenticated user for one or more …; (See at least Balzamo, Abstract, authenticated user; Balzamo, para 0120, encryption and/or decryption requests by the cryptographic component; The cryptographic component allows for the encryption and/or decryption of provided data);
recording, via … by the authenticated user on the one or more … in a history log of the database, wherein the history log includes the identity of the authenticated … and is associated with the permission level associated of the authenticated user; (See at least Balzamo, Abstract, teaches authenticating an identity of the user; See at least Balzamo, para 0122-0125 discussing databases; Balzamo teaches permission levels as explained above in para 0015-0018); granting, to an authorized user via the … , access to view, modify, or engage with the one or more… , based on the permission level of the authenticated user; and (See at least Balzamo, Abstract, teaches authenticating an identity of the user; Balzamo teaches permission levels as explained above (Balzamo, para 0015-0018); For example, Balzamo, para 0015, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the administrator user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of: … editing…; deleting …; creating announcements to be sent to one or more secondary users; editing the announcements; entering contact information editing contact information; entering financial information; editing financial information; uploading documents; deleting documents; monitoring service tickets; sending out messages; sending online invites; and viewing reports (Examiner notes is viewing, modifying and engaging));
wherein the authenticated user is granted access to … , based on the history log; (See at least Balzamo, Abstract, teaches authenticating a user; Balzamo, para 0015-0018; teaches when access is granted to a user; See at least Balzamo, para 0122-0125 discussing databases);
assigning an access level to governing documentation associated with the property such that only authorized users can access and view the governing documentation, wherein access to the governing documentation is controlled based on a permission level associated with the authenticated user; (Balzamo, para 0015-0018, describes users assigned different access to property documents. For example, an administrator user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of editing an authentication table for use in authenticating the user; editing service tickets; editing financial information; uploading documents; deleting documents; monitoring service tickets; sending out messages; sending online invites; and viewing reports. Whereas, the vendor user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of: reading one or more service tickets pertaining to one or more tasks to be completed; and changing a status of at least one of the one or more service tickets);
storing the guidelines or governing documentation associated with the property in the database, wherein the database stores documentation associated with the property for retrieval by authorized users; (Balzamo, para 0070, secure storage of all records in an online database environment; See at least Balzamo, para 0015-0017, teaching document records associated with the property; Balzamo, para 0079, These information technology systems may be used to collect data for later retrieval, analysis, and manipulation, which may be facilitated through a database); updating, via the database, the guidelines for future reference; (Balzamo, para 0008, modification information to modify the service request information stored in the database. The processors are capable of updating the information stored in the database);
wherein the database is a relational database comprising: (Balzamo, para 0122, teaches relational databases);
a series of related tables interconnected via a key field, wherein the related tables store user information, permission levels, and the governing documentation; ((Balzamo, para 0015-0018, teaches permission levels of users and documentation, see above. Balzamo, para 0122, teaches relational databases consist of a series of related tables. The tables are interconnected via a key field. Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field);
indexing against the key field to allow a combination of the related tables, wherein indexing associates the governing documentation with user permission levels; (Balzamo, para 0015-0018, describes permission levels of users, see above. Balzamo, para 0122, teaches relational databases consist of a series of related tables. The tables are interconnected via a key field. Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field);
wherein the key fields comprising dimensional pivot points for combining information from the related tables, wherein the key fields associate the governing documentation with the authenticated user; and (Balzamo, para 0122, recites: “Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field; i.e., the key fields act as dimensional pivot points for combining information from various tables.” Examiner notes “dimensional pivot points” is only mentioned once in Applicant’s own specification, and is identical. See Applicant’s own specification which recites: “Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field; i.e., the key fields act as dimensional pivot points for combining information from various tables.”);
matching primary keys between the related tables, wherein the primary keys maintain relationships between user records and governing documentation records; (See at least Balzamo, para 0015-0017, teaching document records; Balzamo, para 0122, teaches relational databases including: Relationships generally identify links maintained between tables by matching primary keys);
wherein the primary keys represent fields that identify rows of the related tables, (Balzamo, para 0122, Primary keys represent fields that uniquely identify the rows of a table in a relational database); wherein access to the governing documentation is enforced at the database level by permitting retrieval of the rows from the related tables when the permission level associated with the authenticated user matches the permission level stored in the related tables (Balzamo, para 0015-0018, describes permission levels of users; Balzamo, para 0122, Relationships generally identify links maintained between tables by matching primary keys; Balzamo, para 0079, These information technology systems may be used to collect data for later retrieval, analysis, and manipulation, which may be facilitated through a database program). Examiner note: The newly added limitations describing a relational database is identical in Applicant’s specification and in the prior art. See Applicant’s specification, para 0095, reciting: “Relational databases are an extension of a flat file. Relational databases consist of a series of related tables. The tables are interconnected via a key field. Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field; i.e., the key fields act as dimensional pivot points for combining information from various tables. Relationships generally identify links maintained between tables by matching primary keys. Primary keys represent fields that uniquely identify the rows of a table in a relational database.” See prior art Balzamo, para 0122, recites: “Relational databases are an extension of a flat file. Relational databases consist of a series of related tables. The tables are interconnected via a key field. Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field; i.e., the key fields act as dimensional pivot points for combining information from various tables. Relationships generally identify links maintained between tables by matching primary keys. Primary keys represent fields that uniquely identify the rows of a table in a relational database.”
Yet, Balzamo does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Shiralkar teaches: a voting engine …the voting engine is configured to allow for polling of voting matters ... comparing, by the voting engine, the credentials associated with the user to a predetermined credential to determine whether the credentials associated with the user meet or exceed the predetermined credentials; and the credentials associated with the user comprise an age of the user; (See at least Shiralkar Abstract, teaches secure electronic voting; Col 11, lines 53-55, The vote category may represent the type of matter for which the vote is being submitted (e.g., marketing survey, poll, government election, etc.); Shiralkar, Col 1, line 63, voting is limited to eligible voters; Col 9, lines 30-39, teaches the vote collection application verifies the user by comparing the voter identification data (Col 4, lines 8-14, teaches the voter identification data represents information that identifies a user ... For example, voter identification data may include the legal name of a user, his or her date of birth (Examiner notes age of user)), authentication factors, and/or biometric data received from the client application with the voter identification data, authentication factors, and/or biometric data of a respective voter record stored in the data store. If the information supplied by the client application matches the information stored in a voter record in the data store, the vote collection application may determine that the user is an authorized voter) voting engine initiates polling … voting matters, based on one or more voting guidelines … the voting engine, a voting action … voting matters … user who voted and a time period when the voting occurred … voting engine … voting matters … vote on the one or more voting matters a single time (See at least Shiralkar Abstract, teaches secure electronic voting including an encrypted vote stored in a data store; Shiralkar, Col 7, lines 46-64, electronic voting for an election, poll, survey, or other selection process configures the voter registration application, vote collection application, and the tabulation application. ... configure various options ... Such options could include the number or type of authentication factors required for voters to electronically vote, for example type(s) of biometric data a voter is required to submit; Col 11, lines 53-55, The vote category may represent the type of matter for which the vote is being submitted (e.g., marketing survey, poll, government election, etc.); Col 1, lines 50-51, voting window or period of time; Col 4, lines 38-44, The vote status is used to track a user ... the vote status may include an election identifier for a specific election record indicating whether or not the user has voted (Examiner notes voting a single time)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balzamo with a voting engine …the voting engine is configured to allow for polling of voting matters ... comparing, by the voting engine, the credentials associated with the user to a predetermined credential to determine whether the credentials associated with the user meet or exceed the predetermined credentials; and the credentials associated with the user comprise an age of the user; voting engine initiates polling … voting matters, based on one or more voting guidelines … the voting engine, a voting action … voting matters … user who voted and a time period when the voting occurred … voting engine … voting matters … vote on the one or more voting matters a single time as taught by Shiralkar with the motivation for secure and encrypted electronic voting (Shiralkar, Abstract). The Balzamo invention now incorporating the Shiralkar invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the login credentials are selected from the group consisting of: a username and a password (Balzamo, para 0041, The login may include, e.g., typographical login credentials (e.g., username and password)). Yet, Balzamo does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Shiralkar teaches: and a biometric identification method (See at least Shiralkar, Col 3, line19, teaches biometric data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balzamo with and a biometric identification method as taught by Shiralkar with the motivation for secure and encrypted electronic voting (Shiralkar, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 2.
Yet, Balzamo does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Shiralkar teaches: wherein the biometric identification method is selected from the group consisting of: a fingerprint identification method, a facial recognition method, a palm print identification method, an iris recognition method, and a retina recognition method (See at least Shiralkar, Col 3, line19, teaches biometric data; Col 4, lines 34-36, teaches examples of biometric data include fingerprints, face maps for facial recognition, iris prints, and similar data.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balzamo with wherein the biometric identification method is selected from the group consisting of: a fingerprint identification method, a facial recognition method, a palm print identification method, an iris recognition method, and a retina recognition method as taught by Shiralkar with the motivation for secure and encrypted electronic voting (Shiralkar, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 4, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the user type is selected from the group consisting of: an administrator, a home owner, a vendor or tenant, and a power user (Balzamo, para 0014, providing property management services, wherein the user type is selected from the group consisting of administrator; power user; home owner; and vendor.)
Regarding Claim 5, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the user type comprises the administrator, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access to an administrative tasks menu and/or a power user menu of the application (Balzamo, Figures 2 and 3, para 0015, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the administrator user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of editing an authentication table for use in authenticating the user; editing service tickets; deleting service tickets; creating announcements to be sent to one or more secondary users; editing the announcements; entering contact information editing contact information; entering financial information; editing financial information; uploading documents; deleting documents; monitoring service tickets; sending out messages; sending online invites; and viewing reports.)
Regarding Claim 6, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the user type comprises the home owner, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access to a home owners menu of the application (Balzamo, Figure 4, para 0017, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the home owner user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of: reading one or more announcements; reading financial information; downloading documents; performing payment functions; and opening one or more service tickets pertaining to one or more tasks to be completed.)
Regarding Claim 7, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the user type comprises the vendor or the tenant, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access to a vendor access menu of the application (Balzamo, Figure 5, para 0018, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the vendor user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of: reading one or more service tickets pertaining to one or more tasks to be completed; and changing a status of at least one of the one or more service tickets.)
Regarding Claim 8, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the user type comprises the power user, and wherein the method further comprises: granting the user access to a power user menu of the application (Balzamo, Figure 3, para 0016, the user is authenticated as belonging to the power use user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of creating announcements to be sent to one or more secondary users; editing the announcements; entering contact information; editing contact information; entering financial information; editing financial information; uploading documents; deleting documents; monitoring service tickets; sending out messages; sending online invites; and viewing reports.)
Regarding Claim 9, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 8, further comprising: accessing the power user menu of the application, by the power user, to send a first message to a first group of users and a second message to a second group of users, wherein the first message differs from the second message, and wherein the first group of users differs from the second group of users (Balzamo, para 0015, providing property management services, wherein, if the user is authenticated as belonging to the administrator user type, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of creating announcements to be sent to one or more secondary users; editing the announcements; sending out messages; para 0016, the user is granted access to perform tasks selected from the group consisting of creating announcements to be sent to one or more secondary users; editing the announcements; sending out messages; sending online invites. Examiner notes while Balzamo does not appear to explicitly recite the second message is different from the first message, the message itself adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
Regarding Claim 10, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the web conferencing feature or module allows the user to easily connect and communicate with one or more other users (Balzamo, para 0072, the system is configured such that, through the server, the users are able to communication through group conferencing within the digital environment.)
Regarding Claim 12, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising… to the database for storage (Balzamo, para 0079, database). Yet, Balzamo does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Shiralkar teaches: in response to determining that the credentials associated with the user meet or exceed the predetermined credentials, allowing the user to vote on an issue once; and transferring an identity of the user who voted, a time period when the user voted and the vote of the user (See at least Shiralkar, Abstract, Col 1, line 63, voting is limited to eligible voters; Col 9, lines 30-39, teaches the vote collection application verifies the user by comparing the voter identification data, authentication factors, and/or biometric data received from the client application with the voter identification data, authentication factors, and/or biometric data of a respective voter record stored in the data store. If the information supplied by the client application matches the information stored in a voter record in the data store, the vote collection application may determine that the user is an authorized voter); Col 4, lines 38-44, The vote status is used to track a user ... the vote status may include an election identifier for a specific election record indicating whether or not the user has voted (Examiner notes voting a single time)); Col 1, lines 50-51, voting window or period of time; Shiralkar, Abstract, teaches encrypted vote is recorded). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balzamo with comparing, by the voting engine, credentials associated with the user to predetermined credentials, and in response to determining that the credentials associated with the user meet or exceed the predetermined credentials, allowing the user to vote on an issue once; and transferring an identity of the user who voted, a time period when the user voted and the vote of the user as taught by Shiralkar with the motivation for secure and encrypted electronic voting (Shiralkar, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: processing a payment from the user via the payment engine (Balzamo, para 0059, configured to enable home owners to make payments by going to a payment center)
Regarding Claim 16, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, via the payment engine, a payment from the user; and transferring the payment to an external software or service for processing (Balzamo, para 0059, configured to enable home owners to make payments by going to a payment center; para 0077, the system enables third parties to engage in commerce independently through the digital application).
Regarding Claim 17, Balzamo now incorporating Shiralkar, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a modification from the user to customize one or more features of the application; and executing the modification to provide a customized application for the user (Balzamo, para 0076, effectively customize the digital application to their choosing, creating a modular configuration that enables users 705 to select and choose options the users 705 deem pertinent. This also enables the digital application to be tailored to every user 705, to fit the user's 705 needs with very little code modification and time.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to Applicants remarks that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claims are directed to at least the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity as explained in the above 101 analysis. Further, Examiner notes Applicant argues additional elements, for example: “database”, “key fields”. Examiner respectfully notes additional elements are considered in Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, not in Step 2A, Prong One.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks on Example 42, the combination of additional elements in Example 42 included storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrated the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recited a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Example 42 is not analogous to the instant claims, as the instant claims are not converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format regardless of the format input by the user.
With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the relational database, the database is merely briefly mentioned in Applicant’s specification and is described in an expected manner. Further, the claims are not rooted in database technology, and the claims do not solve a technical problem that only arises in database technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a). The generically implemented relational database being referred to does nothing more than generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment and/or merely applying generic database technology, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or significantly more.
With respect to Example 45, the claimed invention was directed to a controller for an injection molding apparatus having a mold defining a cavity for receiving uncured polyurethane that is heated to form a molded article during a cycle of operation of the apparatus, the controller configured to: (a) repeatedly obtain measurements of the temperature of a mold; (b) calculate an extent of curing completion of polyurethane in the mold using the obtained temperatures and the Arrhenius equation. The instant invention is not analogous to Example 45, as the instant claims are directed towards an authentication method for providing property management services, not a molding apparatus.
Further, Examiner recommends Applicant review the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 47-49.
With respect to Applicants remarks (remarks page 9): “Claim 1 likewise applies permission levels through database mechanics to determine whether a retrieval operation may occur, thereby improving system security and data integrity in a multi-user computing environment.” Examiner respectfully does not find this persuasive because Applicant does not explain how or why any claim limitations recite specific improvements, Applicant only makes the assertion. As such, Examiner finds Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patent eligible invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims reflect a practical application (e.g., how the claims reflect an improvement).
Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments with the Balzamo reference.
With respect to Applicants remarks that the prior art does not teach the newly added limitations, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the newly added limitations are merely using a relational database. Not only is the relational database described in Applicant’s specification in a brief manner, it is identical to the prior art. See Applicant’s specification, para 0095, recites: “Relational databases are an extension of a flat file. Relational databases consist of a series of related tables. The tables are interconnected via a key field. Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field; i.e., the key fields act as dimensional pivot points for combining information from various tables. Relationships generally identify links maintained between tables by matching primary keys. Primary keys represent fields that uniquely identify the rows of a table in a relational database.” See prior art Balzamo, para 0122, recites: “Relational databases are an extension of a flat file. Relational databases consist of a series of related tables. The tables are interconnected via a key field. Use of the key field allows the combination of the tables by indexing against the key field; i.e., the key fields act as dimensional pivot points for combining information from various tables. Relationships generally identify links maintained between tables by matching primary keys. Primary keys represent fields that uniquely identify the rows of a table in a relational database.”
Therefore Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner has updated and maintains the 103 rejections for all claims.
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 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 REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629