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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Referring to claims 1, 11, and 20, each of the claims recites in pertinent part “5) recomputing variables including a total monthly cost of base educational services (CBSm), fair market value for monthly rent for the commercial space (Rm), coefficients (a, b), monthly profit amount per child (P), and monthly tuition charge per child (Toc) using the updated internal and external data values; 6) storing the recomputed values in the database” Please change “recomputed values” to read “recomputed variables” for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 recite a method (process) and Claims 11-19 recite another method (process) system and Claim 20 recites another non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture) therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-20, the claims recite a series of steps for organizing an entity for providing educational services for children of employees of a company, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Further the claims recite a series of steps performing the recomputing variables for use in an equation based on the analysis of received information for use in generating an invoice, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts under the Mental Process grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
((Claims 1 and 11) A [computer implemented] education management method wherein a business provides educational services within a commercial space owned or leased by a company, the method comprising the steps of:)
((Claim 20)
[A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a server comprising a processor and memory communicably coupled with a database and a communications network, cause the server to] perform a [computer-implemented] education-management method wherein a business provides educational services within a commercial space owned or leased by a company, the method comprising:
storing, by [a server comprising a processor and memory], internal data values [in a connected database], wherein said internal data values include at least a total number of children (Totalc) of employees of the company being provided with educational services, based on matriculation records;
[executing, by the server communicably coupled with a communications network, the program configured for]:
1) reading, [via the communications network], external data values from third party data providers, wherein said external data values include at least current labor costs;
2) reading the internal data values [from the connected database];
3) detecting whether at least one external data value has changed from a corresponding previously stored external data value for a prior billing period;
4) in response to detecting said change, [automatically and without human intervention] updating, in the connected database], the internal data values that are functionally dependent on the changed external data values
5) recomputing variables including a total monthly cost of base educational services (CBSm), fair market value for monthly rent for the commercial space (Rm), coefficients (a, b), monthly profit amount per child (P), and monthly tuition charge per child (Toc) using the updated internal and external data values;
6) storing the recomputed values [in the database]
7) executing [an accounting software package configured for] generating and electronically transmitting an invoice to ((Claims 1 and 20) the company) ((Claim 11) the employees of the company) for said educational services, wherein an amount of said invoice is reduced by Rm, wherein the monthly tuition charge per child is based on the formula: Tpc=aCBSm–bRm/ Totalc+ P, wherein the steps of reading, detecting, updating, recomputing, storing and generating are performed periodically for successive billing periods.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea
Here the claims recite concepts related to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in particular managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts organizing an entity for providing educational services for children employees of a company. (See paragraphs 5-8, 21-25 and Figures 3A-3B). Further the claims recite concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application performing the recomputation of variables for use in an equation based on the analysis of received information for use in generating an invoice
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people it falls under the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas or covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen and paper in falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A connected database/database. (See paragraphs 10, 33, and 35-36 and Figure 1B)
A program. (See paragraph 10, 38, 79-80)
A server. (See paragraphs 33-35)
A communications network. (See paragraphs 33 and 41)
An accounting software package. (See paragraphs 10 and 25)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium. (See paragraph 77)
Computer-executable instructions. (See paragraph 38)
A processor/one or more processors. (See paragraphs 75-76)
A memory. (See paragraph 76)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. See Id. Accordingly, even in combination 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. 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?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method and another method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic connected database (See paragraphs 10, 33, and 35-36 and Figure 1B) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Therefore claims 3 and 13 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic connected database (See paragraphs 10, 33, and 35-36 and Figure 1B) and communications network (See paragraphs 33 and 41) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Therefore claim 10 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on page 14 of the Remarks, regarding the claim objections the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the claim objections but notes the new claim objections in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 19-28 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a server comprising a processor and memory that executes a program to perform a specific, automated data-processing architecture that provides for:
i. Network ingestion of external data from third-party providers;
ii. Reading of internal data from a connected database;
iii. Change detection that determines whether an external value differs from a previously
stored value for a prior billing period;
iv. Automatic, non-human propagation of updates to internal data values that are functionally dependent on the changed external values;
v. Recomputation of a defined set of variables (CBSm, Rm, a, b, P, Tpc) using the updated datasets;
vi. Persistence of recomputed values to the database; and
vii. Automated invocation of an accounting package to generate and electronically transmit invoices, with the invoice amount programmatically reduced by Rm.
viii. Periodic repetition of the above for successive billing periods
According to Applicant this is not a claim to calculating a price on a generic computer but rather directed to a specific event-driven, dependency-aware update mechanism that automates the synchronization between external feeds (e.g., labor cost indices) and dependent internal records, then recomputes a defined set of values, and electronically generates the billing artifacts, all without human intervention and on a periodic basis. In other words, the claims recite a practical application that improves the way the computer system processes, updates, and propagates financial and operational data across billing cycles, reducing manual reconciliation latency and data-entry errors, and ensuring consistency between external feeds and internal ledgers and provides the type of software-based improvement to computer operations that the Federal Circuit has found eligible in both Enfish and Bascom.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that aspects i) and ii) are collecting information from different sources i.e. the external data values from third party providers (over a network) and internal data values from storage (database), iii) detecting whether there is a change in external data values to previously stored external data concepts, or in sum the claims are collecting information for purposes of detecting whether there is a change. Aspects iv and v covers updating the internal databases based on the changed external values and recomputing variables based on the updated internal and external values. Aspect 6) covers storing the recomputed variable and aspect 7) covers the generation and transmission of an invoice. These aspects are merely applied using the generic server, accounting software package, communications network, program, and connected database for facilitating the identified abstract idea.
The Examiner does not view the automation of synchronization of external and internal records, recomputation of values, and generation of invoices without human intervention and on a periodic basis is a practical application. The Examiner views the aspects of synchronizing records, recomputation, and generation of invoices to be a part of the abstract idea and not additional elements that could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The automation possible by performing the abstract idea using generic computing components (i.e. updating various without human intervention) does not provide a practical application. Further each of Applicant’s proffered benefits would result in an improvement to the abstract idea of managing these services for example improving accuracy in providing the creation of invoices as part of the provision of the services. The Examiner does not view the claims to be similar to Enfish where the claims improved the ability of a computer to store and retrieve data or McRo where specific rules were utilized to achieve a result not achievable by human in their mind as the claims as drafted only improve the abstract idea and do not provide a computer unlike Enfish and the recitation of the claims are considered to be capable of being performed in certain methods of human activity or in mental processes unlike those in McRo.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to those in Ex Parte Desjardins. According to Applicant the claims recite a triggered, automated, dependency-based update pipeline that improves how the server and database maintain synchronized, accurate, and timely records in response to changing external feeds, and automatically produces machine-generated billing outputs, which is an improvement to the functioning of the computerized data-integration and invoicing system, not a mere business idea. The prior characterization of organizing human activity no longer applies as the creating a business entity/occupying a space context is not what the computer performs but rather claims details how the computer system detects change, propagates dependent updates, recomputes, persists, and generates electronic invoices on a periodic schedule.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees maintaining that the recited claims outline steps for organizing services for user, where based on the collection of analysis of information (reading external and internal data), analysis (detecting changes, updating, and recomputing), storing the recomputed values, and using the recomputed values for generating an invoice. Applicant’s proffered improvement to a server and database the Examiner views as mere automation of the abstract idea and further the improved accuracy of the records is an improvement to the abstract idea for managing the services for example in generating accurate invoices.
Applicant argues the claims are similar to DDR Holdings because the claims address a computer-centric problem in how to maintain consistency between multiple asynchronous data sources (internal and external) and automatically propagate dependent recalculations and invoices without human input. According to Applicant the claimed method changes how the computer itself operates by introducing automated change-detection, dependency-based propagation, and event-driven re-computation mechanisms that ensure synchronized database and billing records, which is an improvement not achievable by manual or conventional accounting software. Applicant argues the claims are similar to those in CardioNet because of the improvements related to accuracy, speed, and reliability of computerized data management by automatically detecting data changes and updating all dependent variables before billing execution, thereby reducing data latency and human error in financial systems. According to Applicant DDR Holdings and CardioNet confirm that when claims describe how a computer achieves an improved result, rather than simply stating a goal, they are not abstract. Applicant contends that the amended claims recite precisely that type of improvement: how the server detects changed external data, how it updates internal dependent data, how it recomputes multiple dependent variables, and how it generates and transmits the final invoice, all in an ordered, automated sequence.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the claims are not like CardioNet or DDR Holdings because the Examiner views the additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity for facilitating the performance of the abstract idea. The Examiner does not view the claims to describe how the computer achieves an improved result rather describes the manner of performing abstract idea using generic computing components. The Examiner reiterates that they view that the automation and synchronization of records is an improvement to the abstract idea but rather an improvement to the technology as previously stated.
Applicant argues under Step 2B that the combination of limitations: (i) detecting a change in external values against previously stored prior-period values, (ii) automatically propagating updates to internal values that are functionally dependent on those changed external values, (iii) recomputing a defined set of system variables, (iv) persisting the recomputed values, and (v) invoking an accounting package to electronically transmit invoices with a programmatic Rm reduction, all repeated periodically without human intervention is not a well-understood, routine, conventional sequence on generic computers. According to Applicant the Office has failed to provide evidence illustrating this particular event-driven, dependency-aware update pipeline was routine or conventional at the relevant time but rather acknowledges the disclosure of key aspects of the Applicant's computation (e.g., the particular coefficient-based rec-computation and invoicing relationships). Applicant contends the non-conventional arrangement of computer operations can supply the inventive concept under § 101 because the ordered combination (i.e., change detection across billing periods, which leads to dependency-based internal updates, which leads to automated re-computation and persistence, which leads to automated electronic invoicing with a programmatic rent offset) is the antithesis of a generic "apply it" computerization.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the combination of elements proffered by Applicant are steps of the recited abstract idea as previously stated and not additional elements for consideration under Step 2B. This abstract idea is merely applied using generic computing components and the Examiner reiterates that change detect, automated recomputation and persistence (storing the recomputed values) and generating the invoicing with an offset are steps considered to be a part of the abstract idea where the additional elements identified are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components for automating the abstract idea. Any improvement lies in the abstract idea by managing the analysis of updated values to recompute variables used in generating invoices subsequently delivered and is not an improvement to technology. Further the lack of prior art is not dispositive in a 101 rejection citing to MPEP 2106.05:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Ex Parte Desjardins because the claims provide a non-conventional technical solution to a computer centric problem (i.e. the ML model degradation and in the instant application automated, accurate, low- latency synchronization and invoicing in a distributed data environment). According to Applicant the amended claims likewise solve a computer-centric problem (keeping internal ledgers synchronized with changing external indices and producing correct machine-generated invoices) using an unconventional event-driven, dependency-aware architecture. Applicant contends the cases of Electric Power Group or SAP v. InvestPic do not control because those cases involved claims that merely collected and displayed information or performed mathematical analysis without improving computer operation, whereas in contract the present claims change how the system operates: they detect prior-period deltas in external feeds, automatically propagate dependent internal updates, recompute and persist system state, and generate/transmit billing artifacts, all periodically and without human intervention. That is a specific improvement in computer functionality and data-integration workflows, not an instruction to "apply math on a computer."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the claims provide for how the computer collects information (reading) and analyzing the information similar to Electronic Power Groups. The Examiner does not view the claims provide for a change in how a system operates but rather applies the identified abstract idea using generic computing components to automate (without human intervention) and improve the abstract idea and not an improvement to computer functionality and data-integration workflows as argued. Applicant’s proffered synchronization is the collection of information, determining whether is a change, when there is a change recompute variables, store the recomputed variables, and generate invoices based on the recomputed variables. This synchronization is an improvement to the abstract idea for generating accurate invoice as part of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims are narrowly drawn to a specific technological solution, which is a particular automated computer process involving defined variables, dependencies, and periodic electronic invoicing, and therefore do not monopolize any abstract business practice. Others remain free to perform education- management or billing activities manually or through conventional software without practicing Applicant's automated dependency-based architecture. This confirms that the claims are not abstract in any judicially meaningful sense.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, first noting
The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to “narrow laws that may have limited applications” held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not “wholly preempt the mathematical formula” held ineligible). This is because such a patent would “in practical effect [] be a patent on the [abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon] itself.” Benson, 409 U.S. at 71- 72, 175 USPQ at 676. The concern over preemption was expressed as early as 1852. See Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1852) (“A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.”). While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) (“We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection”).
In the instance case the Examiner views the claims are drawn to specific abstract idea and not to a specific technological solution, where the abstract idea is merely automated using generic computing components and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea as previously discussed by the Examiner.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention introduces a specific, computer implemented for dynamic data driven recalculation and invoicing not present in any known prior system as underscored by the Examiner’s acknowledgement the prior art fails to disclose particular limitations. Appellant reiterates the detecting, automatically updating, recomputing, and generating and transmitting invoices are a coordinated operations is disclosed or rendered obvious by any cited reference. Applicant continues that the claimed computation is not a generic pricing formula. According to Applicant the recited relationship among the variables establish a novel data-integration relationship that directly affects system operation, which is how the machine recomputes values and generates the final electronic invoice. Applicant contends the prior art cited by the Examiner does not teach any method of automated dependency-based recomputation where internal databases variables are dynamically modified in response to changed external economic data but rather conventional systems retrieve static data or perform manual updates to financial records. Applicant contends the claims goes beyond static implementations by providing a closed-loop, event-driven computation cycle that continuously synchronizes external data feeds, dependent internal data, and billing outputs. Applicant argues the claimed equations are not abstract mathematical formulas but are integral to how the computer executes its technical function, specifically, to control how data dependencies are recomputed and how the invoice generation process is automated. Applicant argues that cited references do not teach detecting changes in prior-period external data and automatically updating internal data values that are functionally dependent on those changes. According to Applicant this architecture transforms how computerized accounting systems manage variable data streams, represents an unconventional improvement over traditional manual or batch-based accounting systems as reinforced by the lack of prior art illustrating the claims are directed to a non-obvious and previously unsolved technical problem in the field of automated education-management and accounting.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees citing to MPEP 2106.05:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The Examiner maintains the lack of prior art applied does not indicate the eligibility of the claim in particular that significantly more is added to the abstract idea. Rather the Examiner views the detecting, updating, recomputing, generating, and transmitting steps are performed by generic computer components for merely automating the performance of the abstract idea. Indeed, the disclosure regarding these computer components describes generic computing components performing in their ordinary capacity for facilitating the abstract idea.
The Examiner does not view the particular formula or manner of ascertaining the variables based on the detecting, updating, recomputing for use in the generating the invoice as constituting additional elements but rather defines the abstract idea. The Examiner views the proffered improvements for dynamically updating variables based on changes to external records instead of retrieving static data or performing manual updates as an improvement to the abstract idea by applying the abstract idea on a computer rather than integrating abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. The Examiner views the proffered synchronization and use of a closed loop cycle is an improvement to managing the accuracy of records which the Examiner maintains is an improvement to the abstract idea as previously discussed. The Examiner views the equations recited in the claim relate to defining the abstract idea and how it is applied using generic computing components for merely automating and facilitating the performance of the abstract idea.
The Examiner does not view the detecting changes and automatically updating internal values dependent constitute additional elements but rather define steps of the abstract and are merely applied using generic components for automating and facilitating the performance of the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. The Examiner again reiterates that they view improvements over manual improves by managing variable databases is an improvement to the abstract idea of providing the invoice as part of the abstract idea and does not constitute integration into a practical application as adding significantly more to the abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arthur (US 20140330608) -directed to facilitating the scheduling and payment of a service provider.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629