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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 11/29/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 15, and 17 are independent claims.
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.
As to independent claims 1 and 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 1, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 17, Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “Display… a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and a plurality of control inputs” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to: display a graphical user interface and a plurality of control inputs… wherein the plurality of control inputs include: an entity object filter; an entity object sorter; a display preferences option; and a rank input; receive, via the graphical user interface, a user input indicating how the plurality of entity objects are displayed; and modify, in accordance with the user input, display of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to: display a graphical user interface… receive… a user input… and modify, in accordance with the user input” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 2 and 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 2, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 18, Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Copy/paste all applicable lines for each limitation that is an abstract idea:
Yes, the limitation “wherein the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available to the user based on the user satisfying eligibility criteria, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type” is a continuation of the “Display… a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and a plurality of control inputs” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available to the user based on the user satisfying eligibility criteria, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available to the user based on the user satisfying eligibility criteria, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to performing repetitive calculations, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include a total resource amount attributed to the user that is being retained by an entity that facilitates providing the plurality of entity objects” is a continuation of the “wherein the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available to the user based on the user satisfying eligibility criteria, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include a total resource amount attributed to the user that is being retained by an entity that facilitates providing the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include a total resource amount attributed to the user that is being retained by an entity that facilitates providing the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include an annual resource accumulation by the user” is a continuation of the “wherein the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available to the user based on the user satisfying eligibility criteria, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include an annual resource accumulation by the user” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include an annual resource accumulation by the user” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include employment information of the user” is a continuation of the “wherein the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available to the user based on the user satisfying eligibility criteria, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include employment information of the user” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the eligibility criteria include employment information of the user” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claims 6 and 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 6, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 19, Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is a continuation of the “Display… a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and a plurality of control inputs” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a periodic remittance amount” is a continuation of the “wherein the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a periodic remittance amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a periodic remittance amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a one- time initiation remittance amount” is a continuation of the “wherein the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a one- time initiation remittance amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a one- time initiation remittance amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is a continuation of the “wherein the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a servicing amount” is a continuation of the “wherein the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a servicing amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a servicing amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “each entity object includes a time period within which total resources obtained via each entity object in addition to a gain amount applied to each entity object are to be returned, wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a total remittance amount of the total resources and the gain remunerated throughout the time period” is a continuation of the “Display… a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and a plurality of control inputs” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “each entity object includes a time period within which total resources obtained via each entity object in addition to a gain amount applied to each entity object are to be returned, wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a total remittance amount of the total resources and the gain remunerated throughout the time period” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “each entity object includes a time period within which total resources obtained via each entity object in addition to a gain amount applied to each entity object are to be returned, wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a total remittance amount of the total resources and the gain remunerated throughout the time period” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claims 12 and 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 12, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 20, Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the entity object sorter enables the user to sort the plurality of entity objects in accordance with at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, a one-time initiation remittance amount, an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, and a servicing amount” is a continuation of the “Display… a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and a plurality of control inputs” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object sorter enables the user to sort the plurality of entity objects in accordance with at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, a one-time initiation remittance amount, an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, and a servicing amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the entity object sorter enables the user to sort the plurality of entity objects in accordance with at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, a one-time initiation remittance amount, an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, and a servicing amount” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the display preferences option enables the user to select a side-by-side comparison of details associated with at least two entity objects of the plurality of entity objects” is a continuation of the “Display… a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and a plurality of control inputs” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the display preferences option enables the user to select a side-by-side comparison of details associated with at least two entity objects of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the display preferences option enables the user to select a side-by-side comparison of details associated with at least two entity objects of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As to claim 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the rank input enables the user to rank each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is a continuation of the “Display… a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and a plurality of control inputs” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the rank input enables the user to rank each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the rank input enables the user to rank each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to performing repetitive calculations, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “Receive… a plurality of optional entity objects… based on a determination that a user likely satisfies the eligibility criteria” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to: transmit… a request to a backend system… receive, via the network from the backend system, a plurality of optional entity objects, wherein each of the plurality of optional entity objects is associated with eligibility criteria display, via a graphical user interface of the user device, information associated with at least some of the plurality of optional entity objects and one or more control inputs wherein the one or more control inputs facilitate performing at least one modification” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to: transmit… a request to a backend system… receive, via the network from the backend system, a plurality of optional entity objects, wherein each of the plurality of optional entity objects is associated with eligibility criteria display, via a graphical user interface of the user device, information associated with at least some of the plurality of optional entity objects and one or more control inputs wherein the one or more control inputs facilitate performing at least one modification” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to modify display of the optional entity objects in accordance with one or more user inputs provided via the one or more control inputs” is a continuation of the “Receive… a plurality of optional entity objects… based on a determination that a user likely satisfies the eligibility criteria” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to modify display of the optional entity objects in accordance with one or more user inputs provided via the one or more control inputs” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to modify display of the optional entity objects in accordance with one or more user inputs provided via the one or more control inputs” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely).
As for independent claim 1, Shiely discloses method and a computing system for graphical user interface facilitating modification, comprising:
at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
(Shiely paragraph [0027, [0030] discloses processor connected to user interface executing software instructions stored in memory)
display a graphical user interface depicting a plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user and
(Shiely paragraph [0041] discloses displaying plurality ACME brand washer entity objects available to user as shown in fig. 3)
a plurality of control inputs facilitating modification of how the plurality of entity objects are displayed, wherein the plurality of control inputs include: an entity object filter; an entity object sorter; a display preferences option; and a rank input;
(Shiely paragraph [0041]-[0045] discloses plurality of control inputs 305A-305E and sort By button as shown in fig. 3 and plurality of control inputs 405A-505E and sort By button as shown in fig. 4 that includes object for filer by color, sort by delivery date, preference options such as price, and rank by delivery date)
receive, via the graphical user interface, a user input indicating how the plurality of entity objects are displayed; and modify, in accordance with the user input, display of the plurality of entity objects.
(Shiely paragraph [0024], [0038], [0041]-[0046] discloses entity objects, items available, can be sorted and filtered to display a different list of available objects).
As for claim 17, claim 17 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by in view of Silva et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210407012, filed on 6/26/2020 (hereinafter Silva).
As for independent claim 15, Silva discloses method and A computing system, comprising:
at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
(Silva paragraph [0056]-[0061], [0109], [0173] discloses computer with display and software modules connected to computer system with a network connection)
transmit, by a user device across a network, a request to a backend system of an entity to obtain an entity object via the entity;
(Silva paragraph [0035], [0040], [0080], [0104]-[0107] discloses consumer transmits request for service via network to ATS server by filling out an application)
receive, via the network from the backend system, a plurality of optional entity objects, wherein each of the plurality of optional entity objects is associated with eligibility criteria, wherein the plurality of optional entity objects are received based on a determination that a user likely satisfies the eligibility criteria;
(Silva paragraph [0036]-[0037], [0041] discloses consumer receiving offers from the supplier 215 via intermediary 200 according to user profile indicating eligibility)
display, via a graphical user interface of the user device, information associated with at least some of the plurality of optional entity objects and one or more control inputs for modifying how the plurality of optional entity objects are depicted;
(Silva paragraph [0037], [0060]-[0063] displays user interface with entity objects, loan offers, and control inputs 702 for filtering offers and control input 703 for sorting offers)
wherein the one or more control inputs facilitate performing at least one modification selected from the group consisting of filtering a quantity of the optional entity objects displayed, sorting the optional entity objects, arranging display of at least two of the optional entity objects, and ranking the optional entity objects.
(Silva paragraph [0037], [0060]-[0064] displays user interface with entity objects, loan offers, and control inputs 702 for filtering offers and control input 703 for sorting offers).
As for claim 16, limitations of parent claim 15 have been discussed above. Silva discloses method and system wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to
modify display of the optional entity objects in accordance with one or more user inputs provided via the one or more control inputs.
(Silva paragraph [0061]-[0065] discloses modifying displayed offers to filter or sort according to user entered criteria).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely) in view of Ghosh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250156297, filed on 11/13/2023 (hereinafter Ghosh).
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available to the user based on the user satisfying eligibility criteria, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type
(Ghosh paragraph [0094] discloses eligibility criteria, underwriting criteria, includes user type being person or business).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghosh with Shiely for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for determining criteria used by providers in evaluating customers for new accounts or products”, (Ghosh [0001]).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the eligibility criteria include a total resource amount attributed to the user that is being retained by an entity that facilitates providing the plurality of entity objects
(Ghosh paragraph [0094] discloses eligibility criteria, underwriting criteria, includes total resources amount, savings and assets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghosh with Shiely for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for determining criteria used by providers in evaluating customers for new accounts or products”, (Ghosh [0001]).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the eligibility criteria include an annual resource accumulation by the user
(Ghosh paragraph [0094] discloses eligibility criteria, underwriting criteria, includes annual income).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghosh with Shiely for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for determining criteria used by providers in evaluating customers for new accounts or products”, (Ghosh [0001]).
As for claim 5, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the eligibility criteria include employment information of the user
(Ghosh paragraph [0094] discloses eligibility criteria, underwriting criteria, includes number of years at current job)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghosh with Shiely for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for determining criteria used by providers in evaluating customers for new accounts or products”, (Ghosh [0001]).
As for claim 18, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6-9, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely) in view of Hughes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120317016, filed on 6/8/2012 (hereinafter Hughes).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses check box to filter loan products by low interest rate, only the items that meet filtering criteria are shown).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a periodic remittance amount
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses check box to filter loan products by low monthly payment)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 8, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a one- time initiation remittance amount
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses check box to filter loan products by low fees and/or closing costs).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a filter value
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses various filter values user can use to filter the list of offers being presented).
Hughes further discloses method and system wherein
the entity object sort further enables the user to modify the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects
(Hughes paragraph [0117] discloses sort value can be acquiring duration, expiration of loan offer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes system and method wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a filter value with Hughes system and method where inthe entity object sort further enables the user to modify the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects for a system and method wherein the entity object sort further enables the user to modify the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object sorter enables the user to sort the plurality of entity objects in accordance with at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, a one-time initiation remittance amount, an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, and a servicing amount
(Hughes paragraph [0117] discloses drop down menu to sort offers by interest rate, origination fees, and closing costs).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 19, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 6, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 12, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely) in view of Hughes in view of Silva et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210407012, filed on 6/26/2020 (hereinafter Silva).
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Silva discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a servicing amount
(Silva paragraph [0062]-[0063] discloses user can filter the offers by servicing amount, points and closing costs).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Silva with Shiely and Hughes for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
Claim 11 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely) in in view of Templain, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190012318, filed on 8/19/2016 (hereinafter Templain).
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Templain discloses method and system wherein
each entity object includes a time period within which total resources obtained via each entity object in addition to a gain amount applied to each entity object are to be returned,
(Templain paragraph [0061] discloses time period total resources are to be return, total term of the loan in number of months)
wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a total remittance amount of the total resources and the gain remunerated throughout the time period. (total loan payment)
(Templain paragraph [0061] discloses filtering value includes total remittance amount and gain, total amount of loan).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Templain with Shiely for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
Claim 13 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely) in view of Hoyer, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140164238, filed on 12/12/2012 (hereinafter Hoyer).
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hoyer discloses method and system wherein
the display preferences option enables the user to select a side-by-side comparison of details associated with at least two entity objects of the plurality of entity objects
(Hoyer paragraph [0053] discloses selecting options 506 displays two entity objects 516 in display areas 502 associated with the selecting options as shown in fig. 5B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoyer with Shiely for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely) in view of Silva et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210407012, filed on 6/26/2020 (hereinafter Silva).
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Silva discloses method and system wherein
the rank input enables the user to rank each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects
(Silva paragraph [0112] discloses ranking objects, offers, according to sorting criteria).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Silva with Shiely for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights