DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed June 08, 2026.
Claims 1, 15, and 29 have been amended.
Claims 2, 16, and 30 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 23, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in response to the replacement drawing sheets filed June 08, 2026.
As discussed in the Non-Obvious Subject Matter section below, the previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed June 08, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
As amended, the independent claims clarify that the second interactive GUI is made available to the advisor users and not displayed to the client users. This clarifies the interaction that occurs between client users and advisor users with the workspace environment. The specification explains that the unique arrangement of interactive GUIs and users provides for technical improvements that enable dynamic, custom workflow programs:
Through the use of interactive GUIs, advisor users are enabled to create and configure customized workflow programs that may be used for multiple clients (e.g., such as but not limited to MNEs) and improve upon the use of computing resources, including the numbers of communications that are made and processed, as compared to other document preparation methods which involve duplication, misdirected queries, and/or the like. Further, a unique arrangement of systems, GUIs, and databases is described herein for providing for dynamic, customizable workflows through the use of workflow programs and a workspace environment to create, modify, and share such workflow programs.
Non-limiting embodiments facilitate advisor users to participate in a workflow program directory by making workflow programs available for client selection and, once selected, to facilitate a high-touch and remote interaction that customizes the workflow program for the client. Once a workflow program is complete, non- limiting embodiments allow for continued execution, interactions, and dynamically updating based on changes to tax rules and a footprint of the entity.
(See paragraphs [0084]-[0085]). These features confer eligibility under Section 101. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that GUIs may be a basis for patent-eligibility when tied to underlying technologies or capabilities of a system. See, e.g., Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed Cir. 2018). This line of cases was recently clarified by the Circuit in Broadband ITV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2023-1107, 2024 WL 4018253, *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2024), which held that GUIs could provide the basis for eligibility if they "provide a specific solution". Id. at6DW1109.DO* 19. Here, the claims are directed to a specific solution for executing a dynamic workflow program using multiple interfaces with multiple users.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tailoring the content of a graphical user interface into two graphical user interfaces based on the type of user (i.e. advisor or client) does not amount to an improvement to the graphical user interface itself. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“As a general rule, ‘the collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract.’").
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
As amended, the claims are directed to an improvement in workflow programs that override an existing workflow process by providing for interaction by different types users and customization through a unique workflow directory platform. This is eligible under at least Step 2A. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). Additionally, the claims recite additional details that go beyond any identified abstract idea such that the claims are also eligible under Step 2B. The Federal Circuit has held that "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." See BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F. 3d 1341, 1350 (Fed Cir. 2016). Here, it is non-conventional to provide interactive interfaces to both client and advisor uses as claimed, and allowing an advisor use to modify a selected workflow.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The modifiable workflow program improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The platform itself is described as a generic server in Specification [0089] and was explicitly addressed in the Step 2B section of both the current rejection and the previous rejection. In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.)
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Further, the Step 2B analysis in the Office Action is not supported by Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) or the associated guidelines which require factual support, such as a statement in the specification or a statement of the Applicant, for each element that is alleged to be conventional and well-known. See Memorandum: Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), USPTO (Apr. 19, 2018).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether or not the claims are directed toward a judicial exception under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework is a question of law requiring intrinsic evidence that is independent and distinct from considerations under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 which are questions of fact requiring extrinsic evidence. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, No. 2015-1599, slip. op. at 24 (Fed. Cir. October 17, 2016). Although not required, a consideration of prior art may be made in step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework when determining if additional elements are directed toward well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I). Examiner has provided citations to the specification for each additional element identified as well-known well-understood, routine, conventional. Applicant has not specifically identified which additional elements allegedly lack support.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 15, 27, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the term “and/or” is informal. Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “and/or” is “or.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1 and 3-14 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 15 and 17-28 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 29 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 15, and 29, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of providing a workspace for a client and advisors to execute workflows, which is a method of organizing human activity and mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including legal obligations) by reciting a workspace for an advisor and client to execute a workflow. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting the interaction between advisors and clients in order to complete a workflow. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims recite a mental processes because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting receiving advisor input, receiving client input, evaluating the possible workflows, and executing a selected workflow. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “providing a workspace for a client and advisors to execute workflows,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving workflows, receiving workflow data, receiving a selected workflow, generating a workspace, modifying the workflow, populating the workspace, executing the workflow, and executing the workflow program again. The mere nominal recitation of an interactive graphical user interface, hosting a platform, a processor, and a non-transitory medium does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 28, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: determining and displaying a suggested workflow, receiving client input, configuring the workflow, modifying a workspace, requesting access to entity data, communicating the entity data access request, receiving a response to the entity data access request, and requesting data review.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 15, and 29 recite the additional elements: an interactive graphical user interface, hosting a platform, a processor, and a non-transitory medium. The interactive graphical user interface, hosting a platform, processor, and non-transitory medium limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of managing tax filings in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing tax management process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 15, and 29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting an interactive graphical user interface, hosting a platform, a processor, and a non-transitory medium. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information, processing information, presenting information, and retrieving information. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): an interactive graphical user interface (Specification [0082]), hosting a platform (Specification [0089]), a processor (Specification [0131]), and a non-transitory medium (Specification [0131]-[0133]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting an interactive graphical user interface, hosting a platform, a processor, and a non-transitory medium. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting receiving user input. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting advisor and client users. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 5, 10-11, 13, 19, 24-25, and 27, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 10, 13, 24, and 27 recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 5, 11, 19, and 25 recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting receiving search parameters, searching metadata, outputting the searched workflow, receiving a filter, and retrieving filtered data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 4, 6, 8, 18, 20, and 22, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art already discussed on record is Pinkerman (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2012/0215670 A1), Look et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0024437 A1), Schwaitzberg et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0253727 A1), Bulumulla et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2021/0357865 A1), and Ohme et al. (U.S. 8,583,517 B1).
In addition to the closest prior art already made of record, the following prior art is made of record: Tavares et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0318929 A1).
Tavares discloses a tax preparation and filing system providing a portal (i.e. a user interface) for service provider users (e.g. accountants and tax preparers) as well as a separate client (e.g. taxpayer) portal.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 29, it would not have been obvious to combine the closest prior art of record to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed combination of limitations.
Claims 3-15, and 17-28 depend upon claims 1 or 15 and therefore have all the limitations of claims 1 or 15 and recite non-obvious subject matter for that reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tavares et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0318929 A1).
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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights