DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of May 14, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered and are persuasive so part of the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
5. Claim 1 recites “asynchronously retrieving, validating, and integrating the second data across third-party sources prior to user submission”. Applicant does not describe how “asynchronously retrieving, validating, and integrating” are performed. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I). Also, the term “asynchronously” is not present in the originally filed application. The specification must adequately describe the claimed invention, including all terms used in the claims. The absence of the aforementioned term in the original filing means that it’s meaning and implication are not supported by the detailed description or examples provided in the specification. Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… wherein the second data is asynchronously retrieved, validated, and integrated across third-party sources …”. Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… asynchronously retrieving, validating, and integrating the second data across third-party sources prior to user submission …”.
6. Claim 1 recites “receiving… converting each response into a machine-interpretable format”. Applicant does not describe how converting each response into a machine-interpretable format is performed. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I). Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… converting each response into a machine interpretable format …”. Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… converting each response into a machine interpretable format …”.
7. Claim 1 recites “triggering automatic progression of the workflow based on validation of the formatted responses”. The claim states that workflow progression is triggered "based on validation of the formatted responses," but Applicant does not describe how “triggering automatic progression of the workflow based on validation of the formatted responses” is performed. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I). Regarding “triggering”, Applicant’s Specification (PGPub, para 96), merely discloses “Selecting the “See My Rates” button triggers the background execution of the quoting dataflow illustrated in FIG. 2 .” While para 59 recites “Quoting application (125) may enable GUI (115) to validate user input as the user progresses through the steps, considering different validation rules for different steps.” Based on Applicant’s Specification, only “See My Rates”, triggers a background execution of a workflow. The claim, however, does not limit “progression” to a single trigger (i.e. See My Rates) or background execution. Further, with respect to the claimed “validation”, para 59 describes a GUI validating user input, but not how the validation is performed. Nor does Applicant define “formatted response”. Specifically, Applicant has not equated clicking a GUI button (“See My Rates”) as a “formatted response”. Therefore, [MPEP 2161.01 I] and as a result … represents new matter. Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… wherein progression of the workflow is triggered automatically based on validation of the formatted responses…”. Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… trigger automatic progression of the workflow based on validation of the formatted responses”.
8. Claim 1 recites “dynamically generating, from a third subset of the plurality of pages, a plurality of API calls to a plurality of web services, wherein each API request comprises at least a portion of the first data and the second data that is mapped to a corresponding input for the web service”. Applicant does not describe how “dynamically generating” is performed. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I). Also, the term “dynamic” is not present in the originally filed application. The specification must adequately describe the claimed invention, including all terms used in the claims. The absence of the aforementioned term in the original filing means that it’s meaning and implication are not supported by the detailed description or examples provided in the specification. Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… dynamically generate a plurality of API calls to a plurality of web services, wherein each API request comprises at least a portion of the first data and the second data that is mapped to a corresponding input for the web service …”. Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… dynamically generate, from a third subset of the plurality of pages, a plurality of API calls to a plurality of web services, wherein each API request comprises …”.
9. Claim 1 recites “… converting each response into a machine-interpretable format”. Applicant does not describe how “converting each response into a machine-interpretable format” is performed. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I). Also, “converting each response into a machine-interpretable format” is not present in the originally filed application. The specification must adequately describe the claimed invention, including all terms used in the claims. Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… converting each response into a machine-interpretable format …”. Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… converting each response into a machine-interpretable format …”.
10. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected as each depends on the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on 571-272-6709. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights