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 is a final rejection in response to remarks/amendments filed on 08/14/2025. Claims 1, 9, 13, 14, 15 are currently amended. Claims 8, 10, 16, and 17 are currently cancelled. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-15 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the claim to the benefit of PCT/CA2021/051653 with a filing date of 22 November 2021, which holds priority to provisional application 63/117, 210 filed on 23 November 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-12: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an applicant for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith, the system comprising: a computer apparatus comprising a processor, a memory storing programming instructions thereon and storing one or more qualifying questions associated with each of the qualifying criteria of the programs thereon, a display for displaying information to a user, and an input device for receiving input from the user, the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so as to be arranged to:
Claim 13: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an application for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith, the system comprising:
Claim 14: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an application for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith, the system comprising:
Claim 15: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an applicant for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith and, the system comprising:
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-15 are directed to a system consisting of computing elements making it an apparatus claim, which falls under at least machine or manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, and 11-15 are directed to at least one potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2 of the eligibility analysis.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Claims 1, and 13-15 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an applicant for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith and at least one of the programs including a classification code according to an external job classification index among the qualifying criteria, the system comprising:
a computer apparatus comprising a processor, a memory storing programming instructions thereon and storing one or more qualifying questions associated with each of the qualifying criteria of the programs thereon, a display for displaying information to a user, and an input device for receiving input from the user, the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so as to be arranged to:
prompt the user through the display with a queue of the qualifying questions;
receive user responses from the user through the input device in response to the qualifying questions;
use the user responses to assess for each program if all of the qualifying criteria for the program has been met; and
communicate to the user that the applicant has qualified for one of the programs if all of the qualifying criteria for that program has been met;
wherein the user response to at least one of the qualifying questions is used by the processor in assessing the qualifying criteria associated with more than one program; and
wherein the use of the user responses to assess for each program if all of the qualifying criteria for the program has been met includes the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so at to be further arranged to:
-prompt the user for descriptive words related to previous employment among the qualifying questions;
-determine a plurality of the classification codes as being relevant codes based upon the descriptive words entered as the user response to the prompt; and
-apply each relevant code to the qualifying criteria to assess if the applicant has qualified for said at least one of the programs that includes the classification code among the qualifying criteria
Claim 13: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an application for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith, the system comprising:
a computer apparatus comprising a processor, a memory storing programming instructions thereon and storing on or more qualifying questions associated with each of the qualifying criteria of the programs thereon, a display for displaying information to a user, and an input device for receiving input from the user, the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so as to be arranged to:
prompt the user through the display with a queue of the qualifying questions;
receive user responses from the user through the input devices in response to the qualifying questions;
use the user responses to assess for each program if all of the qualifying criteria for the program has been met, in which the user response to at least one of the qualifying questions is used by the processor in assessing the qualifying criteria associated with more than one program;
communicate to the user that the applicant has qualified for one of the programs if all of the qualifying criteria for that program has been met;
identify non-qualifying programs among the programs in response to the qualifying criteria associated therewith not being met;
-determine if user responses that resulted in qualifying criteria not being met are correctable user responses in which additional user action would result in a subsequent user response that meets the qualifying criteria;
Communicate any correctable responses to the user along with a prompt directing the user of the user actions required in order for the subsequent responses to meet the qualifying criteria to subsequently qualify for the program.
Claim 14: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an application for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith, one or more of the programs including primary criteria relating to a primary person and spousal criteria relating to a spouse of the primary person among the qualifying criteria, the system comprising:
a computer apparatus comprising a processor, a memory storing programming instructions thereon and storing on or more qualifying questions associated with each of the qualifying criteria of the programs thereon, a display for displaying information to a user, and an input device for receiving input from the user, the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so as to be arranged to:
prompt the user through the display with a queue of the qualifying questions; to receive user responses relating to the applicant and user responses relating to a spouse of the application.
-receive user responses from the user through the input device in response to the qualifying questions;
use the user responses to assess for each program if all of the qualifying criteria for the program has been met, in which the user response to at least one of the qualifying questions is used by the processor in assessing the qualifying criteria associated with more than one program, including for each one or more of the programs that includes primary and spousal criteria, assess if the qualifying criteria for the program has been met using both (a) the applicant user responses applied to the primary criteria and the spouse user responses applied to the spousal criteria, and (b) the spouse user responses applied to the primary criteria and the applicant user responses applied to the spousal criteria; and
communicate to the user that the applicant has qualified for one of the programs if all of the qualifying criteria for that program has been met.
Claim 15: An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an applicant for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith and each being associated with one or more program categories, the system comprising:
a computer apparatus comprising a processor, a memory storing programming instructions thereon and storing on or more qualifying questions associated with each of the qualifying criteria of the programs thereon, a display for displaying information to a user, and an input device for receiving input from the user, the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so as to be arranged to:
- prompt the user with one or more category questions;
- identify one or more programs within determined categories of interest based on the user responses to the one or more category questions;
- generate a queue of the qualifying questions according to the qualify criteria associated with the one or more programs identified within the determined categories of interest.
Prompt the user through the display with the queue of the qualifying questions;
Receive user responses from the user through the input device in response to the qualifying questions;
Use the user responses to assess for each program if all of the qualifying criteria for the program has been met, in which the user response to at least one of the qualifying questions is used by the processor in assessing the qualifying criteria associated with more than one program;
Communicate to the user that the applicant has qualified for one of the programs if all of the qualifying criteria for that program has been met;
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, and 13-15 recite an abstract idea under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes claims to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The present invention is directed to this subcategory which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, because when evaluating the bolded limitations, all of the steps are directed to intaking information and following rules or instructions for qualifying for immigrations programs. The entire invention as a whole falls within this abstract idea category, as clear in lines 19-21 of page 1 of the specification which states, “(The present invention) tells a user whether or not they appear to qualify for one or more immigration programs based on generic information entered that can be converted to usable input for different immigration programs.” Therefore, the invention follows rules or instructions regarding immigration qualification and teaches a person how to apply for programs they may qualify in. In the scope of the claims in bold, the claims merely recite steps or instructions centered around managing the personal behavior or interactions between people, for example in claim 1, the limitations of “prompt the user for descriptive words related to previous employment among the qualifying questions; determine a plurality of the classification codes as being relevant codes based upon the descriptive words entered as the user response to the prompt; and apply each relevant code to the qualifying criteria to assess if the applicant has qualified for said at least one of the programs that includes the classification code among the qualifying criteria” are merely instructions to manage personal behavior, wherein the steps aim to check if users comply the rules in a qualification assessment program.
Furthermore, the amended steps above in bold recite functions that can be performed in the human mind with the assistance of a pen and paper. Therefore, in addition to reciting “certain methods of organizing human activity,” the claims also recite an abstract idea under the category of “mental processes.” According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental processes that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Each of the steps above in bold, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind with the help of a pen and paper because they merely recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.” The examiner notes that according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” This will be further covered in Prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea of “intaking user information, matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria, and informing the user of the programs they qualify for.”
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claims include the following additional elements:
(a)-a system comprising: a computer apparatus comprising (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(b)-a processor, (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(c)-a memory storing programming instructions thereon (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(d)-a display for displaying information to a user (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(e)-an input device for receiving input from the user (in claims 1 and 13-15)
The additional elements (a)-(e) are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception using generic computing components. In this case the abstract idea of “intaking user information, matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria, and informing the user of the programs they qualify for” is being implemented on “a computer apparatus comprising a processor, a memory, a display, and an input device.” Please review MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information regarding Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Evidence is found in the specification(page 8, line 22 – page 9 line 9) alluding to the fact that these are generic computing components, which states,
“The system 10 is intended to operate on a computer apparatus of the type including one or more processors and one or more memory devices storing programming instructions thereon which are arranged to be executed by the one or more processors to perform the various functions described herein.
In the illustrated embodiment, the computer apparatus comprises a central server 12 comprised of a central processor 14 with a communication module 16 such as a network adapter to enable the central server 12 to communicate over a network 18, for example the Internet, to a plurality of personal computer devices 20 to be used by individual users respectively. The personal computer devices 20 may be in the form of a portable laptop computer, a desktop computer, a tablet, or smart phone for example. In each instance the personal computer device comprises an internal processor and a memory storing programming instructions thereon executable by the processor to perform the various functions described herein.”
Therefore it is clear that claims allow for the system to be implemented on any common personal computers. In addition, the claims are merely performing a mental process on a generic computer, performing a mental process in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
Furthermore, there is no improvement to any computer functionality or technical field, therefore, even when considering the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The same additional elements set forth in the Prong 2 rejection are also analyzed for whether they recite an inventive concept, the additional elements being repeated as follows:
(a)-a system comprising: a computer apparatus comprising (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(b)-a processor, (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(c)-a memory storing programming instructions thereon (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(d)-a display for displaying information to a user (in claims 1 and 13-15)
(e)-an input device for receiving input from the user (in claims 1 and 13-15)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using (this is where you can recite the above additional elements, in this case (a-e)) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept(See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, no improvements to the processing resources have been purported, because generic computing devices are known to be able to handle the software functions claimed which are simple input, display, and database matching systems. Please review MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information regarding improvements to computing devices(Section I), or technological fields(Section II). Therefore in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a), nothing in the claims, even when viewed as a whole, meaningfully limits the claims such that they provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11 and 12 are also given the full two-part analysis, individually and in combination with the claims they depend on, in the following analysis:
In summary, Claims 2-4 introduce additional steps which manage how questions are distributed within the questionnaire. Specifically, claim 2 teaches that the claims are to be dynamically changing depending on the answers to previous questions. Claim 3 teaches that unrelated questions are removed based on the responses to the essential questions. Claim 4 teaches that essential questions are placed in the beginning. These steps are more of the same abstract idea of “intaking user information, matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria, and informing the user of the programs they qualify for” because all of the steps fall within the scope of “intaking user information.” Taking this information in an efficient manner to reduce redundancy and irrelevancy does not provide an inventive concept because it is simply a claim to affecting the technique in which the data is collected. Therefore, when combined with the claims they depend on, the claims still fall within the abstract idea category “certain methods of organizing human behavior” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Furthermore, these additional steps are being performed on the same additional elements (a) – (e), which have been previously found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2b of the independent claim analysis. Furthermore, these claims are still utilizing generic computing components and no other additional elements have been introduced in the claims, therefore they are still not found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more.
In summary, claims 5-7 all consist of steps that take a test score that is not within the eligibility criteria and converting it to the equivalent score for a test that is evaluated under the criteria. Specifically, claim 5 does this by receiving test scores, and convert the test scores to the qualifying scores according to a prescribed scale. Claim 6 consists of receiving test scores from 2 programs, converting the scores to an intermediate(universal) score, and converts the intermediate score into the equivalent test score of the other program. Claim 7 simply limits these external tests to be language tests. Therefore, when analyzing these claims individually, it is clear that claims 5-7 are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The entire process is directed to mathematical calculations because they simply convert test score to another, similar to how Celsius can be converted to Fahrenheit. A similar example of mathematical relationships recited in a claim can be found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) which states, “Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: ii. A conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, ... iv. Organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.” Furthermore, these steps fall within the scope of the abstract idea of “intaking user information, matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria, and informing the user of the programs they qualify for” since they are encompassed by the scope of “matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria.” Therefore, the combined abstract idea is now “intaking user information, converting test scores to the equivalent score in the criteria, matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria, and informing the user of the programs they qualify for.” Furthermore, these additional steps are being performed on the same additional elements (a) – (e), which have been previously found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2b of the independent claim analysis. Furthermore, these claims are still utilizing generic computing components to perform the abstract idea and no other additional elements have been introduced in the claims, therefore they are still not found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more.
In summary, claim 9 recites additional steps which intake a user’s job description and match it to a classification code. Claim 9 has different classification codes for the same role based on skill level. Overall, this concept of applying classification codes based on a job role is still an example that falls within the subcategory “managing personal behavior” which is a “certain method of organizing human activity” according to MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II)(C). This is because these claims simply organize the categories that certain job descriptions fall under by following existing rules or instructions. In addition to this category, it also falls under the category “Mental Process” found in MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II)(C) which includes, “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” In these claims, judgments can be made to categorize what job title to give someone based on a job description. Furthermore, like other examples found to be mental processes in MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II)(C), “With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’ Therefore, the combined abstract idea is “intaking user information, categorizing their job to a classification, matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria, and informing the user of the programs they qualify for.” Furthermore, these additional steps are being performed on the same additional elements (a) – (f), which have been previously found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2b of the independent claim analysis. Furthermore, these claims are still utilizing generic computing components to perform the abstract idea and no other additional elements have been introduced in the claims, therefore they are still not found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more.
Claims 11-12 intake education information and attribute a score to match it with the criteria. Claim 11 takes in the education information, converts the information to an information score. Claim 12 simply includes what is included in education information. As we know from claims 5-7, converting scores is a “mathematical concept” outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), which also applies in this case. Additionally, claimed as broadly as it is claimed without exact steps determining how the score is calculated, the entire process can be done mentally by a human without a piece of paper by looking at the credentials and giving it an arbitrary score. Therefore, it also a “mental process” as outlined in MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II)(C). Therefore the combined abstract idea is “intaking user information, giving them a score based on their educational experience, matching the credentials with programs having their own criteria, and informing the user of the programs they qualify for.” Furthermore, these additional steps are being performed on the same additional elements (a) – (e), which have been previously found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2b of the independent claim analysis. Furthermore, these claims are still utilizing generic computing components to perform the abstract idea and no other additional elements have been introduced in the claims, therefore they are still not found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or found to be significantly more.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petrucelli, Michael ( US 20090323200 A1 ) hereinafter Petrucelli.
Regarding Claim 13:
Petrucelli teaches:
-An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an application (Petrucelli [0011] Therefore, it is an aspect of one or more embodiments of the present invention to provide an apparatus, system and method for a user to use to determine the type of status, benefit or visa or other government benefit, document and/or award that is appropriate for the user, determine what forms should be filed, assist the user in providing appropriate responses to the questions in the forms, assist the user in determining what attachments, related documentation and fees are required and the sequence and timing for filing.)
-for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith, the system comprising: (Petrucelli [0029] The wizard methodology and decision tree analysis may assist and suggest the user in the selection of the proper type of status, benefit or visa and the correct forms 210 that correspond to the correct status, benefit or visa. It should be understood that there may be many types of status, benefit or visas that are available and the correct status, benefit or visa depends on the individual circumstances and needs of the applicant. Users may be shown the actual form or forms 210 and asked the actual questions on the form.[0047] The system 200 may also provide additional information to the user. With respect to the temporary working example, the system 200 may guide the user through the requirements for that classification.)
-a computer apparatus comprising a processor, (Petrucelli [0034] A user may interact with the system 200 via a number of client application types 212 including by way of non-limiting example, a web browser, a specially-built computer application running on a desktop personal computer, or a specially-built computer application running on a personal digital assistant. ) (Petrucelli [0061] All or a portion of the components of the exemplary embodiments of FIGS. 2-4 can be conveniently implemented using one or more general purpose computer systems, microprocessors, digital signal processors, micro-controllers, and the like, programmed according to the teachings of the exemplary embodiments of the present invention, as will be appreciated by those skilled in the computer and software arts. )
-a memory storing programming instructions thereon(Petrucelli [0062] As stated above, the components of the exemplary embodiments of FIGS. 2-4 can include computer readable storage media or memories for holding instructions programmed according to the teachings of the present invention and for holding data structures, tables, records, and/or other data described herein. Computer readable storage media can include any suitable medium that participates in providing instructions to a processor for execution. Such a medium can take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, transmission media, and the like.)
- and storing on or more qualifying questions associated with each of the qualifying criteria of the programs thereon, (Petrucelli [0047] The user may initiate a session (e.g., launch an application or access a portal 304) in the system 200. The system 200 may provide questions to the user, and the user may be requested to enter answers to those questions 306 into the system 200. The questions may relate to questions relevant to the government application. The system 200 may determine 308 whether the answers are optimal and would likely be acceptable 310 to a government entity that may ultimately receive and process the government application.)
a display for displaying information to a user, (Petrucelli [0014] In accordance with an aspect of the invention, a computer-implemented government application management method and system is provided that provides one or more questions on a computerized display device to a user wherein the one or more questions relate to questions relevant to a government application.)
and an input device for receiving input from the user, (Petrucelli [0034] A user may interact with the system 200 via a number of client application types 212 including by way of non-limiting example, a web browser, a specially-built computer application running on a desktop personal computer, or a specially-built computer application running on a personal digital assistant.)
the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so as to be arranged to: (Petrucelli [0062] As stated above, the components of the exemplary embodiments of FIGS. 2-4 can include computer readable storage media or memories for holding instructions programmed according to the teachings of the present invention and for holding data structures, tables, records, and/or other data described herein)
-prompt the user through the display with a queue of the qualifying questions;(Petrucelli [0030] The wizard may pose a series of questions, and the next step to take--which could be to ask another question, another series of questions, no further questions, or some other action--may in part be determined based upon the prior responses provided by the user.)
-receive user responses from the user through the input devices in response to the qualifying questions;(Petrucelli [0047] The user may initiate a session (e.g., launch an application or access a portal 304) in the system 200. The system 200 may provide questions to the user, and the user may be requested to enter answers to those questions 306 into the system 200. The questions may relate to questions relevant to the government application.)
-use the user responses to assess for each program if all of the qualifying criteria for the program has been met, in which the user response to at least one of the qualifying questions is used by the processor in assessing the qualifying criteria associated with more than one program; (Petrucelli [0045] The end result may be the alignment of the proper forms 210, immigration forms 210 for example, and applications that may best meet the sets of criteria entered by the user. In addition, the specific methodology and uniqueness of the system 200 may speed up the processing of these forms 210 by retaining and applying standardized or required data across form types, thereby increasing accuracy, quality, and reliability within the immigration application process for both the applicant and the eventual U.S. government processing entity. [0047] The system 200 may determine 308 whether the answers are optimal and would likely be acceptable 310 to a government entity that may ultimately receive and process the government application)
-communicate to the user that the applicant has qualified for one of the programs if all of the qualifying criteria for that program has been met; (Petrucelli [0049] Turning back to FIG. 3, the system 200 may use a decision tree analysis (e.g., the business rules 206 and the rules engine 204) to determine 312 a form filing strategy based on the answers 310. The system 200 may determine 314 whether any other documents are required or should be provided for the government application to improve its likelihood of acceptance. At this point, the system 200 updates and verifies current government rule compliance of the application and notifies user. The system determines whether the application is final and ready for submission 316 or requires editing 320.)
-identify non-qualifying programs among the programs in response to the qualifying criteria associated therewith not being met; (Petrucelli [0014] The invention requests one or more answers corresponding to the one or more questions and then determines whether the one or more answers are acceptable to a government agency ultimately to receive the government application, and that the one or more answers will likely not result in a rejection or return of the government application. [0030] It should be noted that the appropriate response may not always be obvious from the forms 210. Inserting an incorrect or ambiguous response may result in long delays and rejections in an application process with the government. The wizard may warn the user of answers that may be rejected.)
-determine if user responses that resulted in qualifying criteria not being met are correctable user responses in which additional user action would result in a subsequent user response that meets the qualifying criteria; (Petrucelli [0014] The invention provides guidance to the user to correct any unacceptable answers or suggest one or more appropriate answers.[0030] The wizard may in certain instances offer a selection of appropriate answers and assist the applicant in determining which response is appropriate. For example, if a government form asks the applicant if he has ever been convicted of a crime, the wizard will may indicate to the user what constitutes a crime in the context of that form. )
-Communicate any correctable responses to the user along with a prompt directing the user of the user actions required in order for the subsequent responses to meet the qualifying criteria to subsequently qualify for the program. (Petrucelli [0030] If, for instance a driving violation constitutes a crime for a particular application, the wizard will assist the user in answering the form correctly. The wizard may in certain instances offer additional or clarifying questions not asked on the form. The wizard also may screen user information to sift through what is relevant to the form filling in process. [0040] e. completing at least one of the immigration-related forms, wherein fields are normalized within forms and mapping is maintained between fields and also providing guidance to the user to correct unacceptable answers and suggest more appropriate answers; [0047] The system 200 may provide guidance 308 to the user to correct any unacceptable answers or suggest one or more appropriate 310 answers. The process of receiving answers, determining if the answers will be acceptable, and providing guidance and suggesting answers may be iterative.)
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are free of prior art, and would be considered allowable if they are amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. The reasons for indication of allowable subject matter are as follows. Amended claim 1 has been amended to include all of the limitations of claim 10, in which claim 10 has been indicated in the previous office action to be free of prior art. Upon an updated search and review, the cited prior art of record and the prior art reviewed in the updated search still fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of currently amended claim 1. More specifically, neither Petrucelli, nor any of the prior art of record not relied upon but cited in both the nonfinal rejection dated 3/17/2025 and the present office action teach or suggest: -prompt the user for descriptive words related to previous employment among the qualifying questions
-determine a plurality of the classification codes as being relevant codes based upon the descriptive words entered as the user responses to the prompt; and
-apply each relevant code to the qualifying criteria to assess if the applicant has qualified for said at least one of the programs that includes the classification code among the qualifying criteria.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations above in view of the specification encompass systems that allow users to describe their previous employment, determine multiple (more than one) relevant job code based on the descriptive words, and apply each relevant code to the qualifying criteria to see if the applicant qualifies for any of the programs. While the combination of Petrucelli and Brooks has been shown to teach the limitations of claim 8 in the nonfinal rejection of 3/17/2025, Brooks does not teach “apply each relevant code to the qualifying criteria to assess if the applicant has qualified for said at least one of the programs that includes the classification code among the qualifying criteria.” Whilst Brooks does assess whether a user’s job description maps to a job classification code, and whether they qualify for a program, Brooks does not apply each relevant code from a list of codes to the qualifying criteria to see if any of the classification codes are qualified for. Furthermore, there is no obvious combination of prior art references that would predictably yield the limitation because as it pertains to immigration qualification, it is not obvious to apply each relevant code to the qualifying criteria to assess if the applicant has qualified for at least one of the programs. Therefore, amended claim 1 is now free of prior art and claims 2-7, 9, 11 and 12 are also free of prior art by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Similarly, claim 14 and 15 have been amended by the applicant to include all of the limitations of the independent claim 1 and the limitations of claims 14 and 15 which have been indicated in the previous office action to be free of prior art. Upon an updated search and review, the cited prior art of record and the prior art reviewed in the updated search still fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of currently amended claims 14 and 15. The following claim mapping has been provided to show the differences between the prior art and the limitations in claim 14 and 15 that define over the prior art.
While Petrucelli does teach the following elements which are present in both claims 13, 14, and 15 (as shown above in the rejection of claim 13, view “regarding claim 13” for more detailed claim mapping for these elements):
-An immigration program qualification assessment system for assessing qualification of an application (Petrucelli [0011].)
-for a plurality of government immigration programs each having respective qualifying criteria associated therewith, the system comprising: (Petrucelli [0029] [0047])
-a computer apparatus comprising a processor, (Petrucelli [0034] [0061])
-a memory storing programming instructions thereon(Petrucelli [0062])
- and storing on or more qualifying questions associated with each of the qualifying criteria of the programs thereon, (Petrucelli [0047])
a display for displaying information to a user, (Petrucelli [0014])
and an input device for receiving input from the user, (Petrucelli [0034])
the processor being arranged to execute the programming instructions so as to be arranged to: (Petrucelli [0062])
-prompt the user through the display with a queue of the qualifying questions;(Petrucelli [0030])
-receive user responses from the user through the input devices in response to the qualifying questions;(Petrucelli [0047])
-use the user responses to assess for each program if all of the qualifying criteria for the program has been met, in which the user response to at least one of the qualifying questions is used by the processor in assessing the qualifying criteria associated with more than one program; (Petrucelli [0045] [0047])
-communicate to the user that the applicant has qualified for one of the programs if all of the qualifying criteria for that program has been met; (Petrucelli [0049])
Petrucelli fails to teach these limitations in claim 14:
-prompt the user... to receive user responses relating to the applicant and user responses relating to a spouse of the application
- “for each one or more of the programs that includes primary and spousal criteria, assess if the qualifying criteria for the program has been met using both (a) the applicant user responses applied to the primary criteria and (b) the spouse user responses applied to the primary criteria and the applicant user responses applied to the spousal criteria.”
Specifically, claim 14 requires the “for each one or more of the programs that includes primary and spousal criteria, assess if the qualifying criteria for the program has been met using both (a) the applicant user responses applied to the primary criteria and (b) the spouse user responses applied to the primary criteria and the applicant user responses applied to the spousal criteria.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that the immigration systems uses the credentials of the primary person and spouse to assess if they meet the qualifying criteria, but also switches which spouse is assessed as the primary person, to determine if that arrangement fulfills the qualifying criteria. Neither Petrucelli, nor any of the cited prior art of record teach or disclose such a feature. It would not have been obvious to perform this feature as it has not been found in the prior art to perform such an assessment. The examiner notes that claim 14 is free of prior art specifically for the limitations not taught above. Since every limitation in claim 13 has been shown to have been taught by the prior art of record (see “regarding claim 13), then claim 13 is still rejected over prior art.
Petrucelli fails to teach these limitations in claim 15:
-prompt the user with one or more category questions
-identify one or more programs within determined categories of interest based on the user response to the one or more category questions
-generate a queue of qualifying questions according to the qualify criteria associated with the one or more programs identified within the determined categories of interest.
Likewise, claim 15 is now an amended claim that still includes the limitations previously indicated to be free of prior art in the nonfinal rejection dated 3/17/2025. Neither Petrucelli, nor the prior art of record, nor the NPL “CanadIM” teach or suggest:
-prompt the user with one or more category questions
-identify one or more programs within determined categories of interest based on the user response to the one or more category questions
-generate a queue of qualifying questions according to the qualify criteria associated with the one or more programs identified within the determined categories of interest.
The broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of the specification, of the limitations above includes asking the user questions about the category of immigration, identifying relevant programs based on their answers to questions, and generating queue of qualifying questions according to the qualifying criteria. Petrucelli fails to teach this because, Petrucelli requires the applicant to directly select which type of program they are applying for. Similarly, the other cited prior art of record does not remedy this deficiency because none of the cited prior art of record teach “prompt the user with one or more category questions, identifying one or more programs within determined categories of interest based on the user response to the one or more category questions, and generate a queue...” Even when looking at NPL, “CanadIM, “Free Family Sponsorship Assessment Form,” the user is required to select via a box, the category of interest (general immigration, business immigration, family sponsorship, study visa” however, CanadIM does not disclose “-prompt the user with one or more category questions
-identify one or more programs within determined categories of interest based on the user response to the one or more category questions.” Therefore, in view of amended claim 15, claim 15 is now free of prior art. The examiner notes that claim 15 is free of prior art specifically for the limitations not taught above. Since every limitation in claim 13 has been shown to have been taught by the prior art of record (see “regarding claim 13), then claim 13 is still rejected over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to the specifications and drawings have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification made on 08/14/2025.
Regarding arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, the examiner has fully considered the applicants arguments. Regarding arguments over claim 1, 14, and 15, the rejections to the amended claims have been withdrawn in view of the amendments for the reasons stated above in the indications of subject matter free of prior art. However, regarding arguments over amended claim 13, the applicant has considered all of the applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive for the following reasons. Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “claim 13 discloses an arrangement in which the user is effectively guided or coaches as to how to qualify in the future for the program despite a current ineligibility...what future qualifications are required of the user in order to meet the qualifying criteria in page 12 of the remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely recite “determine if user responses that resulted in qualifying criteria not being met are correctable user responses in which