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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed November 25, 2025.
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 maintained as the replacement drawing sheets are still low-resolution screenshots that contain portions that are missing or blurry, and therefore are not electronically reproducible.
Applicant’s arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly lacking eligible subject matter. The claims have been further amended to clarify the technical nature of the invention. For example, the amended claims recite the additional steps of modifying the selected workflow program based on the input received from the advisor use through the second interactive graphical user interface, and automatically executing the executable workflow program again in response to at least one of the following: a user request, a scheduled time, a change in law or regulation, a change in entity data, or any combination thereof.
For the reasons discussed during the above-referenced interview, it is submitted that claims 1, 15, and 29, as amended, are directed to eligible subject matter. The claims are directed to an improvement in workflow programs that override an existing workflow process by providing for interaction by 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). The applicability of DDR Holdings was discussed on the interview.
The specification supports the eligibility of the claims as it describes that the claimed invention is directed to technical improvements:
(See paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed computer components have not been improved by the automation of the manual process. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), has been found by the courts not to be sufficient to show an improvement in a computer-functionality.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
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 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.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on November 25, 2025 are not acceptable because figure(s) 4-19 are low resolution screenshots that contain portions that are missing or blurry, and therefore are not electronically reproducible. See 37 CFR 1.84(I). Replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d) containing figures that are of sufficient quality to be electronically reproduced are 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 19-25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkerman (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2012/0215670 A1), hereinafter Pinkerman, in view of Look et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0024437 A1), hereinafter Look, in view of Schwaitzberg et al. US 2023/0253727 A1, hereinafter Schwaitzberg.
Claim 1.
Pinkerman discloses a method comprising:
providing an interactive graphical user interface to a plurality of advisor users, the interactive graphical user interface configured to facilitate each advisor user to create at least one workflow program (Pinkerman [0035] multi-state Payroll Service Bureaus (PSBs) and CPA firms; [0037] information for agencies and local taxing jurisdictions may be maintained; [0038] PSBs assign roles within their organization);
Regarding the following limitation:
receiving, from the plurality of advisor users, a plurality of workflow programs, each workflow program comprising at least a portion of an executable workflow including a sequence of nodes corresponding to a sequence of actions connected with execution logic, wherein the sequence of actions comprises at least one of the following: validating data, manipulating data, generating a notification, generating a report, generating and communicating a query for information, or any combination thereof;
Pinkerman discloses receiving, from the plurality of advisor users, a plurality of workflow programs, each workflow program comprising at least a portion of an executable workflow, wherein an actions comprises at least one of the following: validating data, manipulating data, generating a notification, generating a report, generating and communicating a query for information, or any combination thereof (Pinkerman [0039] workflows provide a set of tasks that must be finished before the workflow can be closed; [0039] research tasks; [0042] verification processes; [0044] provide multiple workflows for resolving notices; [0045] generate and view reports). However, Pinkerman does not disclose wherein an executable workflow including a sequence of nodes corresponding to a sequence of actions connected with execution logic, but Look does (Look [0031], [0126] a workflow comprises a sequence or series of connected steps for performing a particular process (which solves a particular problem or achieves a particular goal). A workflow diagram comprises an arrangement of geometric shapes and connections, the geometric shapes representing steps of the workflow and the connections representing relationships between the steps; [0032], [0126] a workflow that is created by the authoring platform may be later retrieved from the graph database and displayed at the client computer).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of a workflow represented by graphical geometrical shapes and connections of Look for the workflow of Pinkerman. Both the workflow of Pinkerman and the workflow of look are a series of steps for performing a task and are known in the art of client services. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in the art of organizing workflows for administering client services for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Pinkerman’s system with the improved functionality to provide users with quick visual understanding of the overall steps that need to be taken to solve certain problems or to achieve certain goals, as suggested by Look (Look [0005]).
Pinkerman, as modified by Look, teaches:
receiving, from the plurality of advisor users, workflow data associated with the plurality of workflow programs, the workflow data comprising at least one element of metadata (Pinkerman [0039], [0048] PSB may create a custom workflow; [0039] status of notices include entered, opened, waiting, re-opened, completed, and closed);
Regarding the following limitation:
hosting, on a workflow directory platform accessible to a plurality of client users, the plurality of workflow programs in association with the workflow data, the workflow directory platform configured to enable the plurality of client users to search and/or browse the plurality of workflow programs through at least one client interactive graphical user interface;
Pinkerman discloses hosting, on a workflow directory platform accessible to a plurality of client users, the plurality of workflow programs in association with the workflow data (Pinkerman [0025], [0028], [0044], [0046] store research and agency tax information from workflows in a database; [0035] system implemented on an individual agency Graphical User Interface (GUI); [0036] system available to staff, clients, and agencies; [0037] login). However, Pinkerman does not disclose the workflow directory platform configured to enable the plurality of client users to search and/or browse the plurality of workflow programs through at least one client interactive graphical user interface, but look does (Look [0079] workflows may be tagged; [0082], [0117] A user may input a search tag via a client interface, which causes a search of the received tag within the database taxonomy on the graph database. When a matching node representing the received tag is found in the database taxonomy, any workflows linked to the matching node are traversed and returned in the search results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the workflow database of Pinkerman by including workflow tags that are searchable and allow viewing of workflow search results through a client interface as taught by Look. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to organize workflows in a way that allows easy search, as suggested by Look (Look [0077] conventional workflows are not organized in a way that allows easy search).
Pinkerman, as modified by Look, teaches:
receiving, from a client user of the plurality of client users through the at least one client interactive graphical user interface, a selected workflow program of the plurality of workflow programs through the workflow directory platform, the selected workflow program associated with an advisor user of the plurality of advisor users (Pinkerman [0028] entering information through an interface; [0054] clients can customize letters; [0070] user may configure notice type workflow; [0193] client may transmit a notice);
Regarding the following limitation:
generating a workspace environment on a computing device of the advisor user corresponding to the selected workflow program, the workspace environment based on the at least a portion of the executable workflow associated with the selected workflow program, the workspace environment comprising a second interactive graphical user interface displayed to the advisor user and configured to visualize the selected workflow program and modify the selected workflow program based on input received from the advisor user through the second interactive graphical user interface;
Pinkerman discloses generating a workspace environment on a computing device of the advisor user corresponding to the selected workflow program, the workspace environment based on the at least a portion of the executable workflow associated with the selected workflow program (Pinkerman [0039] system supports importation of data from files include company master file, client agency master file and user file; [0039] active lists may be color coded; [0091], [0168] new notice template may be created; [0093], [0170] new notice may be placed in the active notice listing; [0225] agency notice tracking system). However, Pinkerman does not disclose the workspace environment comprising a second interactive graphical user interface displayed to the advisor user configured to visualize the selected workflow program and modify the selected workflow program based on input received from the advisor user through the second interactive graphical user interface, but Look does (Look [0082], [0124]-[0125] search results; [0031], [0126] author may create and modify a graphical workflow of geometric shapes and connections).
The known technique allowing an author to create and modify a graphical workflow having geometric shapes and connections of Look, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Pinkerman as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both allowing clients to work with workflows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of allowing an author to create and modify a graphical workflow having geometric shapes and connections of Look to the workflows of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Look to the teaching of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a graphical workflow of Look features into workflow systems. Further, applying graphical workflows to Pinkerman, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient visual understanding of the overall steps that need to be taken to solve certain problems or to achieve certain goals, as suggested by Look (Look [0005]).
Pinkerman, as modified by Look, teaches:
modifying the selected workflow program based on the input received from the advisor use through the second interactive graphical user interface (Look [0040] After creating the new client workflow, the user may continue to interact with the client interface 132 to modify the client workflow by adding, removing, or editing the steps, relationships between the steps, or associated content of the client workflow. After receiving each user interaction/modification of the client workflow, the server and database workflows may be updated to reflect the modifications);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Look in the system of Pinkerman for the same reasons discussed above.
Pinkerman, as modified by Look, teaches:
populating the workspace environment with entity data received from or identified by the client user to configure an executable workflow program from the selected workflow program (Pinkerman [0039] system supports importation of data from files include company master file, client agency master file and user file; [0074] find company matching the identifier; [0075] client submits notice information; [0225] client may upload documents to the agency notice tracking system);
automatically executing the executable workflow program (Pinkerman [0039] customer request for an update; [0062], [0075] enter a new notice action; [0091], [0168] new notice template may be created; [0093], [0170] new notice may be placed in the active notice listing); and
Pinkerman does not disclose the following limitation, but Schwaitzberg does:
automatically executing the executable workflow program again in response to at least one of the following: a user request, a scheduled time, a change in law or regulation, a change in entity data, or any combination thereof (Schwaitzberg [0022] modeling EBITDA; [0066], [0074] re-simulate the risk model after assumption objects are updated).
The known technique of recalculating results when a there is a change or update to a component used in a calculation of Schwaitzberg, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Pinkerman as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both using workflows to manage financial information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of recalculating results when a there is a change or update to a component used in a calculation of Schwaitzberg to the workflows of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Schwaitzberg to the teaching of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such recalculating results of Schwaitzberg features into workflow systems. Further, applying recalculating results to Pinkerman, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more accurate results by preventing inaccuracies from compounding, as suggested by Schwaitzberg (Schwaitzberg [0003]).
Claim 3.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
determining at least one suggested workflow program based at least partially on an entity footprint associated with an entity of the client users (Pinkerman [0054] agency notice tracking system provides the capability to auto assign notices based off local agency); and
displaying the at least one suggested workflow program to the client user, the at least one suggested workflow program comprising the selected workflow program (Pinkerman [0054] agency notice tracking system provides the capability to auto assign notices based off local agency).
Claim 5.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
displaying, to the client users, a search interface configured to receive at least one search parameter (Pinkerman [0073] prompted with choices including entering a company, federal employer or state identifier);
querying metadata associated with the plurality of workflow programs based on the at least one search parameter to identify at least one workflow program matching the at least one search parameter (Pinkerman [0074] company matching the identifier may be displayed to the user); and
displaying the at least one workflow program to the client user, the at least one workflow program comprising the selected workflow program (Pinkerman [0070] user may configure notice type workflow).
Claim 6.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
wherein the workflow data comprises metadata including the at least one element of metadata, the metadata comprising at least one of the following: a service agreement, an identification of at least one advisor contract, a description of a workflow program, a form, a role associated with the workflow program, an individual advisor associated with the workflow program, or any combination thereof (Pinkerman [0038], [0054] users can be assigned a skill level and receive notices matching their skill level).
Claim 7.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
receiving, from the client user, input data in response to at least one of the following: a questionnaire, a form, a prompt, or any combination thereof (Pinkerman [0039] system supports importation of data from files include company master file, client agency master file and user file; [0074] find company matching the identifier; [0075] client submits notice information; [0225] client may upload documents to the agency notice tracking system); and
configuring the executable workflow based at least partially on the input data (Pinkerman [0062], [0075] enter a new notice action; [0091], [0168] new notice template may be created; [0093], [0170] new notice may be placed in the active notice listing).
Claim 8.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
wherein the input data comprises the entity data (Pinkerman [0039] system supports importation of data from files include company master file, client agency master file and user file; [0074] find company matching the identifier; [0075] client submits notice information; [0225] client may upload documents to the agency notice tracking system).
Claim 9.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
wherein generating the workspace environment comprises modifying an existing workspace environment to include the selected workflow program (Pinkerman [0044] research workflow; [0048] customized workflow; [0112] once user has selected an open notice the user may choose to perform research or actuals workflows).
Claim 10.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
wherein generating the workspace environment comprises generating at least one graphical user interface configured to access data in an existing workspace environment (Pinkerman [0038] user types prevent access by persons to functions for which they do not have privileges wherein configuration GUIs enable PSBs to manage user roles).
Claim 11.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
receiving, from the client user, a filter identifying a subset of entity data (Pinkerman [0045] sorting and filtering capabilities are provided for the various report types enabling users to generate reports for their particular need or circumstance); and
retrieving the subset of entity data based on the filter (Pinkerman [0045] sorting and filtering capabilities are provided for the various report types enabling users to generate reports for their particular need or circumstance).
Claim 13.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
generating a dashboard graphical user interface accessible by the client user, the dashboard graphical user interface comprising an identification of an advisor and/or an advisor contract associated with the selected workflow program (Pinkerman [0075], [0085] active client; [0038], [0054] users can be assigned a skill level and receive notices matching their skill level).
Claim 14.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
wherein the selected workflow program comprises at least one node configured to generate a prompt to the client user to request a review of data or a document (Pinkerman [0062] user may be prompted for the next course of action; [0073] user prompted for a company, federal employer or state identifier; [0095], [0175] inform client of their responsibility for resolving the notice; [0121], [0138], [0147] prompt user for closure workflow; [0127] user may be prompted to select an actuals workflow; [0129] user prompted to enter a penalty amount; [0132] user may be prompted to select an abatement request type).
Claim 15.
Pinkerman discloses a system comprising at least one processor (Pinkerman [0234]) programmed or configured to:
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the remaining limitations claim 15 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 17.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 17 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 19.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 19 as shown above in claim 5.
Claim 20.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 20 as shown above in claim 6.
Claim 21.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 21 as shown above in claim 7.
Claim 22.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 22 as shown above in claim 8.
Claim 23.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 23 as shown above in claim 9.
Claim 24.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 24 as shown above in claim 10.
Claim 25.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 25 as shown above in claim 11.
Claim 27.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 27 as shown above in claim 13.
Claim 28.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the elements of claim 28 as shown above in claim 14.
Claim 29.
Pinkerman discloses a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory medium including program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (Pinkerman [0234]), cause the at least one processor to:
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all of the remaining elements of claim 29 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg further in view of Bulumulla et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2021/0357865 A1), hereinafter Bulumulla.
Claim 4.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. However, Pinkerman does not disclose the following limitation, but Bulumulla does:
wherein the at least one suggested workflow program is determined based at least partially on a change in law or regulation (Bulumulla [0028] automatically update new tax laws).
The known technique automatically updating new tax laws of Bulumulla, as shown above, is applicable to the system of maintain local tax information as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are payroll services systems that aid clients in tax compliance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of automatically updating tax laws of Bulumulla to the local tax information of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bulumulla to the teaching of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such automatically updating tax law features into payroll services systems. Further, applying automatically updating tax laws to Pinkerman, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient processing of workflows because it would reduce the number of additional notices received from agencies as a result of applying out of data tax laws.
Claim 18.
Pinkerman in view of Look, Schwaitzberg, and Bulumulla teaches all the elements of claim 18 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim(s) 12 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg further in view of Ohme et al. (U.S. 8,583,517 B1), hereinafter Ohme.
Claim 12.
Pinkerman in view of Look and Schwaitzberg teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Pinkerman discloses:
receiving, from the advisor user, a filter identifying requested entity data (Pinkerman [0039] filtering capabilities for managing the display notices resident in the active notice list);
Pinkerman discloses PSBs accessing and retrieving information for their clients (Pinkerman [0046]). However, Pinkerman does not disclose the following limitations, but Ohme does:
communicating, to the client user, a data access request based on the filter (Ohme (Col. 1 Line 65-Col. 2 Line 8), (Col. 4 Lines 60-67) allow access to tax return data in response to the request); and
receiving, from the client user, an approval or denial of the data access request (Ohme (Col. 1 Line 65-Col. 2 Line 8), (Col. 4 Lines 60-67) allow access to tax return data in response to the request).
The known technique granting accountants access to their client’s tax data from prior years of Ohme, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Pinkerman as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are providing advisors a tool for ensuring their clients comply with the tax code. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of granting accountants access to their client’s tax data of Ohme to the workflows of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ohme to the teaching of Pinkerman would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such access granting features into tax workflow systems. Further, applying granting accountants access to their client’s tax data to Pinkerman, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient access of important client information with minimal input from the client because the client only needs to grant permission rather than track down where the data is located and then provide it to their accountant.
Claim 26.
Pinkerman in view of Look, Schwaitzberg, and Ohme teaches all the elements of claim 26 as shown above in claim 12.
Conclusion
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