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 . Claims 1-8, 11-12, and 15 are pending.
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 1-8, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a method (i.e., a process) and claim 15 to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
A method for capture of client intake information, the method comprising:
soliciting and receiving a query including one or more elements of selection criteria for a potential attorney;
populating a listing of one or more practitioners based on said one or more elements of selection criteria;
generating one or more editable documents, each of said one or more editable documents including one or more fillable fields;
receiving one or more elements intake data, said one or more elements of intake data including at least a client name and employer name;
populating said one or more fillable fields with said one or more elements of intake data;
generating one or more document files pertaining to each of said one or more editable documents and including said one or more elements of intake data;
generating a legal engagement document;
entering time stamped electronic signatures on said legal engagement document;
receiving a code corresponding to a payment modality, wherein said payment modality is payroll deduction;
transmitting a query comprising said one or more elements of intake data corresponding to said employer name;
receiving eligibility information corresponding to said client name, wherein said eligibility information either confirms or denies that an individual associated with said client name is eligible for payroll deduction from a company associated with said employer name;
wherein, if said eligibility information confirms that said individual is eligible for payroll deduction from said company, generating a payroll deduction agreement for said individual;
sending a message to said company, wherein said message includes bank account information associated with said potential attorney;
providing credentials for a meeting;
sending [a] message to one or more parties including said legal engagement document and said one or more document files.
The abstract idea of claim 15 is:
capturing client intake information.
The abstract ideas highlighted above describe the rules or instructions pertaining to obtaining client intake information (claims 1 and 15) and facilitating document generation, payment, payroll deductions, and meetings between attorney and client (claim 1). This is further supported by [005]-[013] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract ideas highlighted above describe the business relations between client and attorney, these business relations including: obtaining client intake information (claims 1 and 15) and facilitating document generation, payment, payroll deductions, and meetings between attorney and client (claim 1). This is further supported by [005]-[013] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea of claim 1 could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: electronically; electronic; to an employer database / from said employer database; SMTP/SFTP; virtual.
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements: an intake platform; a scheduling module operatively connected to said intake platform; a messaging client operatively connected to said intake platform; an attorney database operatively connected to said intake platform; a client database operatively connected to said intake platform; a documents database operatively connected to said intake platform; and a payment module operatively connected to said intake platform.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [021] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 11 include additional steps and/or information that narrow the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claims 5-6, in addition to including additional steps and/or information that narrow the abstract idea, recite further additional element(s) (documents database). Similar to above, these additional elements are simply being used for the tasks of the narrowed abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 12, in addition to including additional steps and/or information that narrow the abstract idea, recite further additional element(s) (attorney database). Similar to above, these additional elements are simply being used for the tasks of the narrowed abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-8, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agoni (US 20020133374) in view of Ship (US 20220229978), Saylors (US 20030074311), and Kleppmann (US 20140164529).
Claim 1
Agoni discloses: a method for capture of client intake information {[0049] The present invention relates to a system and method for facilitating the rendering of professional services. [0080] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of the process of a client searching and selecting attorneys. A start state at a block 402 proceeds to a block 404 wherein the client enters initial case information.}, the method comprising:
soliciting and receiving a query including one or more elements of selection criteria for a potential attorney {[0099] FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of a general process for pre-retainer communication between the client and the candidate attorneys and for retaining and billing an attorney. A start state at a block 802 proceeds to a block 804, wherein the client's initial and detailed case information is submitted to the candidate attorneys. At a block 806, a candidate attorney engages in pre-retainer communication with the client. [0097] The search process may also allow for keyword searches. In one embodiment, the search engine searches a law practice description field of attorney profile records to look for at least partial matches with the client-entered keywords. It will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill that the present invention may accept additional search criteria from clients and may search any of the attorney profile data for full or partial matches.};
populating a listing of one or more practitioners based on said one or more elements of selection criteria {[0091] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of a weighted search process for searching multiple search conditions. A start state of block 502 proceeds to a block 504, where the client is prompted to enter multiple search conditions. [0093] In one embodiment, the five attorneys with the highest search scores are displayed to the client as search results.}.
Agoni doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Ship, in a similar field of endeavor directed to collaboration on the drafting of a shared digital contract, teaches
generating one or more electronically editable documents, each of said one or more electronically editable documents including one or more fillable fields {[0024] The edit module 116 may be initiated by the base module 114 when a user selects an option to make edits to a digital contract. The edit module 116 may allow users to select a portion of a digital contract to be edited. The user can then choose to change specific text within the document or select and change larger sections of the document, such as replacing an entire clause within the document.};
populating said one or more fillable fields with said one or more elements of intake data {[0028]};
generating one or more document files pertaining to each of said one or more electronically editable documents and including said one or more elements of intake data {[0055] According to some aspects of this disclosure, the method includes finalizing the digital contract upon approval by the at least two user accounts at block 420. For example, the drafting module 120 illustrated in FIG. 1 may finalize the digital contract upon approval by the at least two user accounts.};
generating a legal engagement document {[0055]};
entering time stamped electronic signatures on said legal engagement document {[0029] Once the digital contract has been accepted by all parties and no more edits are required, the system allows users to sign the document electronically, i.e., e-signature or digital signature. This allows users and parties to easily execute a digital contract within the system. [0037] The tracking database 112 may contains data for all edits and revisions done on a digital contract. The edits and revisions are stored in data files for each digital contract. Each digital contract may have multiple files for storing edits and revisions. The files would include the changes made, the user who made the changes, and a time stamp of when the user made the change. The separation of each change in a data file allows each change to be tracked and then recalled as needed. It also creates a comprehensive audit trail, at database 300.};
sending an electronic message to one or more parties including said legal engagement document and said one or more document files {[0029] The negotiation module 122 may help coordinate all parties and send copies of the digital contract to each user. [0060] For example, the communication module 126 illustrated in FIG. 1 may send the communication to at least another user account of the at least two user accounts. According to some aspects of this disclosure, the method includes storing the communication in associated with the digital contract in the tracking database. For example, the communication module 126 and/or the tracking database 112 illustrated in FIG. 1 may store the communication in associated with the digital contract in the tracking database.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Agoni to include the features of Ship. Given that Agoni is directed to matching legal service providers with clients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the document generation features of Ship, in order to facilitate a collaborative digital contract drafting and negotiation process through a common platform {[0005] of Ship}.
The combination of Agoni and Ship doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Saylors, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating payroll deductions, teaches:
receiving one or more elements intake data, said one or more elements of intake data including at least a client name and employer name {[0039] The unique employee identification, once entered into the system, is connected to information about the employee 100 such as his name, address, phone number, social security number, bank routing numbers, current employer, current salary or other determination of payroll limits, current payroll deduction status, and other relevant data. [0042] The unique employee identification, once entered into the system, is connected to information about the employer 110 such as its name, address, phone number, employer identification, bank routing numbers, current employees, payroll processor/software, and other relevant data.};
receiving a code corresponding to a payment modality, wherein said payment modality is payroll deduction {[0037] As an introduction to the system of the present invention, FIG. 2 shows an exemplary embodiment of the self-administered automatic payroll deduction system of the present invention in which automatic payroll deductions may be set up, altered, and/or applied. [0069] As shown in FIG. 13A, the employee 100 logs onto the web site 132, selects the registered goods-vendor 104c, and is redirected to the goods-vendor web site 150c. Alternatively, the employee 100 logs onto the goods-vendor web site 150c and selects a payment option indicating the purchase is to be paid for using the payment system of the present invention.};
transmitting a query comprising said one or more elements of intake data to an employer database corresponding to said employer name {[0061] The web site 132 then sends the employee registration request to the transaction processor 134 that, in turn, may generate a unique employee identification. The transaction processor 134 preferably sends the employee registration request to the payroll system 116. The system 130 may also ask the employee 100 to print, sign, and send a registration document to the payroll system 116.};
receiving, from said employer database, eligibility information corresponding to said client name, wherein said eligibility information either confirms or denies that an individual associated with said client name is eligible for payroll deduction from a company associated with said employer name {[0061] Once the employee's information has been confirmed, the transaction processor 134 updates the employee's status in the database 140 and notifies the employee 100 (e.g. by email) that registration has been confirmed. It should also be noted that the supplied information might be supplied to or available to user authorized appropriate parties (e.g. vendors 104, employers 110, payroll systems 116, and/or the accounting system 136).};
wherein, if said eligibility information confirms that said individual is eligible for payroll deduction from said company, generating a payroll deduction agreement for said individual {[0071] The employee 100 then returns to the web site 132 for automatic payroll deduction authorization where the employee 100 verifies all information and completes the automatic payroll deduction authorization. The web site 132 then adds the automatic payroll deduction into the database 140 and sends the automatic payroll deduction request to the transaction processor 134. The transaction processor 134, in turn, sends the automatic payroll deduction request to the payroll system 116, the accounting system 136, and/or the verification system 138 to set up a recurring receivable.};
wherein said message includes bank account information associated with said potential attorney {[0058] The employer 110 would be required to provide information such as its name, address, phone number, employer identification, bank routing numbers, current employees, and other relevant data. Examiner notes that attorney is merely a label for the type of provider and doesn’t distinguish functionally and/or structurally, per MPEP 2111.05. Further, the feature is shown in Agoni.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Agoni and Ship to include the features of Saylors. Given that Agoni is directed to matching legal service providers with clients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the payment features of Saylors, in order to facilitate automatic payroll deductions that enable a more efficient finance model for both the provider and client {[0013] of Saylors}.
The combination of Agoni, Ship, and Saylors doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Kleppmann, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating meetings, teaches:
sending a SMTP/SFTP message to said company; SMTP/SFTP {[0057] The proxy server 104 discussed herein may include multiple different types of servers, such as an IMAP (Internet Message Access Protocol) proxy server, an Exchange ActiveSync proxy server, and an SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) proxy server. In some embodiments, a single proxy server handles both inbound messages and outbound messages.};
providing credentials for a virtual meeting {[0062] When the IMAP proxy server receives the credentials, it extracts the upstream server hostname from the username field, connects to the upstream server, establishes a secure channel using TLS, and attempts login using the upstream username and password. The success or failure of the upstream login attempt can then be passed on to the client device. virtual meeting indicated in [0107]: The potential activities, events or other items include meetings, conferences, phone calls, personal activities, project deadlines, tasks, and the like.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Agoni, Ship, and Saylors to include the features of Kleppmann. Given that Agoni is directed to matching legal service providers with clients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the features of Kleppmann, in order to allow users to continue using their existing communication tools while modifying the functionality of those communication tools {[0022] of Kleppmann}.
Claim 2
Agoni further discloses: wherein said one or more elements of selection criteria includes criteria selected from the list comprising pricing information, attorney name, firm name, attorney geographic location, firm geographic location, attorney specialty, firm specialty, attorney and/or firm practice area(s), and an attorney and/or firm's participation in any employee benefit client referral program {[0082] At a next block 408, the client enters one or more search conditions to search for an attorney whose skill and experience are appropriate to represent the client in a particular legal matter. Search conditions may include the state where the attorney is licensed, the location of the attorney office, the language skill of the attorney or the office staff, the practice sub-area of the attorney, client-entered keywords, and so forth}.
Claim 3
Agoni further discloses: generating a user record {[0080] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of the process of a client searching and selecting attorneys. A start state at a block 402 proceeds to a block 404 wherein the client enters initial case information. Initial case information may include client's name, address, area of law involved, and zip code. A client's initial case information is stored as an initial case record in the case database 114. The initial case information may include additional information, such as the client's e-mail address and age. The organization of an initial case record in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention is illustrated in FIG. 18.}; and populating said user record with data selected from the list comprising identifying information, user credentialing information, and said one or more elements of intake data {[0080]}.
Claim 5
Ship further teaches: wherein said step of generating one or more electronically editable documents includes a step of retrieving said one or more electronically editable documents from a documents database {[0016] The collaborative digital contract drafting system 102 may include a digital contract database 104 that stores templates of digital contracts for a specific industry. The templates that are stored in the digital contract database 104 may be standard digital contracts that are often used in an industry or may be custom templates created and stored by a user.}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Ship is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 6
Ship further teaches: wherein said documents database is populated by an individual or a law firm {[0016]}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Ship is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 8
Saylors further teaches: entering time stamped electronic signatures on said payroll deduction agreement to generate a signed payroll deduction agreement {[0074] If the service-vendor 104d requires it, the employee 100 may be instructed to print, sign, and send the service agreement to the service-vendor 104d. Alternatively, the service agreement may be sent electronically to the service-vendor 104d using electronic verification, electronic signature, or digital signature as verification of identity. }.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Saylors is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 11
Saylors further teaches: transmitting, to said employer, information selected from a group comprising identifying information for a selected one of said one or more practitioners, identifying information for said client, identifying information for said client's employer, a payroll schedule for said client's employer, pricing information, and bank account information {[0041] There are many incentives for an employee 100 to use the system of the present invention. In addition to allowing an employee 100 to access his own money, this invention provides a powerful budgeting tool. Used properly, the employee can make all necessary payments from his gross pay so that the net pay he receives is actually money that has not been previously allocated. In other words, the employee is able to allocate funds for goods and/or services such as paying his taxes, paying for loans, making investments, and paying for goods and services on a one-time basis or on a periodic basis. These payments are made conveniently in that there is no need to write a check and mail payment to a vendor. Although a fee may be associated with the use of the system, the savings in postage, material costs, and late fees would substantially compensate the employee for the use of the system. There are also significant time savings in not having to buy, find, or prepare regular postal mail payments.}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Saylors is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 12
Agoni further discloses: wherein said step of populating a listing of one or more practitioners based on said one or more elements of selection criteria comprises the sub-steps of: sending a query comprising said one or more elements of selection criteria to an attorney database {[0050] Those ordinarily skilled in the art will appreciate that the professional profile database 112 and the case database 114 may be combined as one database, and that one universal communication module may be used to facilitate pre-retainer communication and post-retainer communication. [0091] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of a weighted search process for searching multiple search conditions. A start state of block 502 proceeds to a block 504, where the client is prompted to enter multiple search conditions. [0093] In one embodiment, the five attorneys with the highest search scores are displayed to the client as search results.}; receiving said listing of one or more practitioners in response to said query {[0050], [0091], [0093]}.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Agoni, Ship, Saylors, and Kleppmann, further in view of Spaling (US 20230206363).
Claim 4
The combination of Agoni, Ship, Saylors, and Kleppmann doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Spaling, in a similar field of endeavor directed to issuing digital powers of attorney and other legal and/or related health documents, teaches: wherein said one or more document files is one or more documents selected from the list comprising a custom last will and testament, a healthcare power of attorney, a personal property memorandum, a durable power of attorney, a healthcare power of attorney, a living will, a living trust, a HIPAA release, and/or an asset/financial report {[0078] The POA generation module 205 provides the functionality for the system to automatically generate a DPOA where there is no existing POA stored in the system for a Grantor or where a Grantor simply would like to revoke and replace an existing DPOA.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Agoni, Ship, Saylors, and Kleppmann to include the features of Spaling. Given that Agoni is directed to matching legal service providers with clients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the power of attorney generation features of Spaling, in order to facilitate auditing, creating, storing, requesting and/or issuing DPOAs or legal (and/or related health) documents {[0021] of Spaling}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Agoni, Ship, Saylors, and Kleppmann, further in view of Sarkar (US 20070282654).
Claim 7
The combination of Agoni, Ship, Saylors, and Kleppmann doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Sarkar, in a similar field of endeavor directed to appointment scheduling, teaches: wherein said step of providing credentials for a virtual meeting includes the sub-steps of: receiving real-time availability of a selected one of said one or more practitioners {[0042] FIG. 10 illustrates the client appointment addition module (CADM) 902. The appointment system presents the client with available time slots. The CADM 902 allows the client to create an appointment with the practitioner given the available time slots. Once the client selects a preferred time for appointment 902b, the CADM presents the client with an updated list of available appointments 902a, a confirmation message is displayed, and the client is asked if this is a preferred appointment time 902b. If the time presented to the client is the preferred appointment time, then the CADM 902 checks the database 107 for other prior appointments of the client with the same practitioner, thereby preventing duplicate appointments. If the client has prior appointments 902c with the same practitioner, then the CADM 902 asks the client if the prior appointment has to be cancelled 902e. If the client does not want to cancel the prior appointment, the present appointment request is cancelled 902d. If the client wants the prior appointment to be cancelled, then the information request is accepted 902g. If no other prior appointments exist, then the appointment is confirmed and the database 107 is updated, and the color of the cell corresponding to the particular time slot is changed 902f. The appointment addition information is passed on to the message-handling module 114, and a confirmation email is sent to both the practitioner and the client.}; presenting said real-time availability {[0042]}; receiving a selection of a time window based on said real-time availability {[0042]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Agoni, Ship, Saylors, and Kleppmann to include the features of Sarkar. Given that Agoni is directed to matching legal service providers with clients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the scheduling features of Sarkar, in order to facilitate automatically monitoring the schedule of appointments between a practitioner and clients or clients and sending alerts to the practitioners and customers or clients in real-time of the change in appointments {[0003] of Sarkar}.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agoni in view of Ship and Sarkar.
Claim 15
Agoni discloses: a system for capturing client intake information {[0049] The present invention relates to a system and method for facilitating the rendering of professional services. [0080] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of the process of a client searching and selecting attorneys. A start state at a block 402 proceeds to a block 404 wherein the client enters initial case information.}, the system comprising:
an intake platform {[0050] FIG. 1 is a high-level block diagram illustrating a host 110 having accessible communication modules and databases, facilitating communication and service transactions between a client 102 and a professional 104 through a network 106 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.};
a messaging client operatively connected to said intake platform {[0050] The host 110 is connected to a professional profile database 112, a case database 114, a pre-retainer communication module 116 for managing pre-retainer communication between a client and candidate professionals, and a case communication module 118 for managing post-retainer communication between a client and a retained professional.};
an attorney database operatively connected to said intake platform {[0050]};
a client database operatively connected to said intake platform {[0058] CaseSmart returns information indicating which attorneys matched the search conditions. The client 201 may select all or some of the attorneys and submit detailed case information to the selected candidate attorneys for review. CaseSmart stores the submitted detailed case information in the case database 114 connected to the web site 202. CaseSmart's pre-retainer communication module 116 facilitates and permits preretainer communications between the client 201 and the candidate attorneys regarding both the case and retainer terms.};
a payment module operatively connected to said intake platform {[149] The attorney billing module 2509 bills the attorney using the billing information (such as credit card information and/or address information) stored in the attorney profile database. In one embodiment, the attorney billing module 2509 bills the attorney for entering profile information into the attorney profile database 112.}.
Agoni doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Ship, in a similar field of endeavor directed to collaboration on the drafting of a shared digital contract, teaches:
a documents database operatively connected to said intake platform {[0016] The collaborative digital contract drafting system 102 may include a digital contract database 104 that stores templates of digital contracts for a specific industry. }.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Agoni to include the features of Ship. Given that Agoni is directed to matching legal service providers with clients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the documents database features of Ship, in order to facilitate a collaborative digital contract drafting and negotiation process through a common platform {[0005] of Ship}.
The combination of Agoni and Ship doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Sarkar, in a similar field of endeavor directed to appointment scheduling, teaches: a scheduling module operatively connected to said intake platform {[0042] FIG. 10 illustrates the client appointment addition module (CADM) 902. The appointment system presents the client with available time slots. The CADM 902 allows the client to create an appointment with the practitioner given the available time slots.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Agoni and Ship to include the features of Sarkar. Given that Agoni is directed to matching legal service providers with clients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the scheduling features of Sarkar, in order to facilitate automatically monitoring the schedule of appointments between a practitioner and clients or clients and sending alerts to the practitioners and customers or clients in real-time of the change in appointments {[0003] of Sarkar}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
On pages 9-11, applicant offers remarks regarding the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Examiner maintains that claims 1 and 15 recite an abstract idea, one pertaining to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and grouped under Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People or Commercial or Legal Interactions. As seen in the analysis above, examiner has only considered those groupings that are enumerated in the MPEP, contrary to applicant’s assertion.
Further, examiner maintains that any additional element – e.g., electronically; electronic; to an employer database / from said employer database; SMTP/SFTP; virtual – is a generic computing element performing in its ordinary capacity to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [021] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Based on MPEP 2106.05(f), this is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical application, nor does it add significantly more, whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
35 U.S.C. § 103
On pages 11-16, applicant offers remarks regarding the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. These arguments are predicated on the previously applied DiMarco. Given the extensive amendments, which modified the scope of the claim, these arguments are moot. Applicant is directed to the claim analysis above.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20020049617, which teaches: A system and method of providing benefits. One method consistent with the invention includes identifying at least one price for each of a plurality of line items within a benefit category, and offering the line items for purchase by the individual. Another method consistent with the invention includes offering benefit line items to the employee for purchase using a predefined employer contribution. The line items may be established based on a group benefit cost. A system consistent with the invention may include a database comprising data representing at least one price for each of a plurality of line items within a benefit category; a processor for accessing the database; and a user-interface for accessing the processor to allow purchase of the line items by the employee. A method of processing a benefit claim consistent and a method of providing customer service to an individual are also provided.
US 20090217176, which teaches: The present invention relates to a method for managing meeting conflicts using user defined priority within a electronic calendar application, and providing history of meeting invitations. When a new meeting is being scheduled, if a conflict exists, the user may set a priority to the meeting. On reschedule or suppress meeting, a priority of overlapped meetings are automatically updated and acceptance is generated for meeting becoming in higher priority. A GUI allows user to modify priority of meetings at any time (accept and "decline with keep me informed" are automatically generated according to new priority).
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 JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629