DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1-24 have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Priority and 35 U.S.C. §112(a) (Written Description)
Applicant asserts that the current claims are entitled to receive the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/548326 and cites paragraphs [0020-0023], [0035], [0042]-[0045], and [0058], and in FIGs. 4 and 6-8 for support. Examiner notes, however, that applicant’s cited paragraphs and figures do not provide support. The analysis is provided in later section, Priority.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant argues that the claims, as amended, recite specific technical improvements in computer functionality and contends the present claims are not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and overcome the present rejection. Also, applicant states “the amended claims, however, recite concrete, platform-level operations ( e.g., automatic provisioning of an email address upon an approval signal, creation and gating of a portal account by license status, and programmatic recording of approval/account information), reflecting specific computer operations beyond organizing human activity.” Furthermore, applicant states “the claimed operations integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by (i) tying identity/email provisioning to a verified approval signal, (ii) enforcing access control through license-status gating of portal features, and (iii) recording approval and portal-account data to ensure traceability. These elements improve the functioning of the management platform by automating approval-driven provisioning, access enforcement, and lifecycle recordkeeping” and also states “[a]ccordingly, the ordered combination (e.g., the approval-responsive email generation associated with a portal account, license-status gating of portal functionality, and territory state orchestration with time-stamped waitlisting and promotion) amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract concept. The combination of approval-bounded identity provisioning, license status based gating, and explicit territory state management is unconventional in the cited lead-management references.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim 1 recites franchising, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the amended claim 1 continues to recite “receiving…a lead identifier;” “determining…whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by the lead identifier;” “sending…an electronic approval request for the lead identifier;” “receiving….an answer responding to the electronic approval request;” “in response to the answer comprising an approval signal, automatically provisioning…: an email address generated in response to an approval response to the electronic approval request and associated with a portal account; and “the…account, accessible…and gated….to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active;” “in response to receiving the answer, automatically forwarding…an electronic license and distribution request to an entity associated with the lead identifier;” “recording…information associated with the approval and the …account,” the claim, as a whole, is directed to franchising which is a method of organizing human activity and abstract idea. This involves a process of franchising including leads evaluation, approval, account setup and recording. This is a commercial or legal interactions, therefore, falls within a certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Additional elements, “using a management platform comprising a communications interface, one or more processors, and a memory ,” “a management platform”, “a graphical user interface”, “portal account…configured to…” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or filed of use, they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technological field.
Claims 9 and 18 also recite the abstract idea of franchising. With respect to claim 9, the additional elements of “a management platform comprising a communications interface, a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute one or more computing modules stored in the memory”, represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or filed of use, they do not improve the functioning of a computer or implement another technology or technological field. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 18, the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising a processor; and a memory having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1”, represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or filed of use, they do not improve the functioning of a computer or implement another technology or technological field. Claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 also recites the abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, the amended claim 22 continues to recite “receiving…a selection of a territory from a potential dealer;” “determining…whether the territory is taken;” “determining…whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by the potential dealer;” “sending…an electronic approval request for the potential dealer;” “maintaining, in a territory registry, a territory state comprising an available state, a taken state, and a deactivated state;” “when the territory state is the taken state, registering the potential dealer on a waitlist and persisting the registration with a timestamp;” “detecting…whether a territory associated with a dealer is in the deactivated state;” and “…when the territory associated with the dealer is in the deactivated state, automatically notifying the potential dealer and promoting the potential dealer from the waitlist”, the claim, as a whole, is directed to franchising which is a method of organizing human activity and abstract idea. This involves a process of franchising including evaluation of dealer territory request, determination of leads requirements, approval request and territory waitlist management. This is a commercial or legal interactions, therefore, falls within a certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Additional elements, “using a computing device comprising a processor and a memory”, “using the computing device”, represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or filed of use, they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technological field.
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §§102-103
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9 and 18 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102; therefore, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 are withdrawn. Rejections of amended claims 1, 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103 are provided below.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 22 has overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103; therefore, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are withdrawn. However, the amended claim 22 introduces New Matter as described below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Provisional Application No. 62/548326, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed provisional applications and the parent application do not disclose limitations, “in response to the answer comprising an approval signal, automatically provisioning, by the management platform: an email address generated in response to an approval response to the electronic approval request and associated with a portal account; and the portal account, accessible via a graphical user interface and gated by the management platform, configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active;” recited in claims 1, 9 and 18,
“upon receiving the answer to the electronic approval request, generating the portal account, accessible on the graphical user interface, for the entity associated with the lead identifier” recited in claim 19, and “the portal account is configured to enable the entity to: access compliance workflows with status tracking and evidence capture; or submit one or more dealership requests” recited in claim 20, as well as “receiving, using a computing device comprising a processor and a memory, a selection of a territory from a potential dealer; determining, using the computing device, whether the territory is taken; determining, at a management platform, whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by the potential dealer; sending, by the management platform, an electronic approval request for the potential dealer; maintaining, in a territory registry, a territory state comprising an available state, a taken state, and a deactivated state; when the territory state is the taken state, registering the potential dealer on a waitlist and persisting the registration with a timestamp; detecting, using the computing device, whether a territory associated with a dealer is in the deactivated state; and using the computing device, when the territory associated with the dealer is in the deactivated state, automatically notifying the potential dealer and promoting the potential dealer from the waitlist” recited in claim 22, as well as “a trigger, responsive to the approval signal, configured to automatically generate an email address associated with a portal account” recited in claim 24. Therefore, the current claims of the present application do not receive the benefit of the filing date of Provisional Application No. 62/548326.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “using a management platform comprising a communications interface, one or more processors, and a memory: receiving, at a management platform, …” should be “using a management platform comprising a communications interface, one or more processors, and a memory: receiving, at the [[a]] management platform…” For purposes of examination, the claims are being interpreted “w using a management platform comprising a communications interface, one or more processors, and a memory: receiving, at the [[a]] management platform…”
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-21:
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method (‘process’), claims 9-17 is directed to a system (‘machine’), and claims 18-21 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (‘manufacture’). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims: 1 and 18
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1 and 18 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite:
using a management platform comprising a communications interface, one or more processors, and a memory;
receiving, at a management platform, a lead identifier;
determining, at the management platform, whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by the lead identifier;
sending, by the management platform, an electronic approval request for the lead identifier;
receiving, at the management platform, an answer responding to the electronic approval request;
in response to the answer comprising an approval signal, automatically provisioning, by the management platform:
an email address generated in response to an approval response to the electronic approval request and associated with a portal account; and
the portal account, accessible via a graphical user interface and gated by the management platform, configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active;
in response to receiving the answer, automatically forwarding, by the management platform, an electronic license and distribution request to an entity associated with the lead identifier; and
recording, by the management platform, information associated with the approval and the portal account.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims recite a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a process of franchising including leads evaluation, approval, account setup and recording.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional element(s) of “using a management platform comprising a communications interface, one or more processors, and a memory ,” “a management platform”, “a graphical user interface”, “portal account…configured to…” recited in claim 1, and “a processor; and a memory having stored thereon executable instruction that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform…” recited in claim 18 merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim: 9
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 9 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite:
a management platform comprising a communications interface, a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
execute one or more computing modules stored in the memory for receiving a plurality of lead identifiers;
determine whether one or more lead requirements has been completed by the lead identifiers;
trigger transmission of electronic approval requests for the lead identifiers;
receive answers to the electronic approval requests;
in response to an approval signal, automatically provision:
email addresses generated in response to an approval response to the electronic approval request and associated with a portal account; and
portal accounts, accessible via a graphical user interface and gated by the management platform, configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active;
in response to receiving the answers, automatically forward electronic license and distribution requests to entities associated with the lead identifiers; and
record information associated with the approval and the portal account.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims recite a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of franchising including leads evaluation, approval, account setup and recording. Additionally, the claims recite “determine whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied…”, “automatically provision an email address in response to an approval response…and a portal account…” which is grouped within “mental processes” that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with pen and paper. The claim is abstract ideas because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional element(s) of “a management platform comprising a communications interface, a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute one or more computing modules stored in the memory”, “a graphical user interface”, “portals account…configured to…” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-17, 19-21
Claim 2 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, at the management platform, an indication that an initial lead requirement has been fulfilled by the entity associated with the lead identifier.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 2 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving and processing, at the management platform, an initial request for distribution of goods or services.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 3 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, at the management platform, a calendar request, and scheduling, by the management platform, an appointment for the entity associated with the lead identifier.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 4 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
periodically reporting, by the management platform, sales and distribution data associated with the lead identifier to a licensor.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 5 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determining, by the management platform, whether the sales and distribution data has been reported; and
sending, by the management platform, a warning in response to a lack of sales and distribution data associated with the lead identifier.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 6 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
transmitting, by the management platform, a warning message to the entity associated with the lead identifier.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 7 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
terminating, by the management platform, the license, electronically, with the entity associated with the lead identifier..
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 8 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites additional details (i.e. names or telephone numbers associated with a plurality of leads’ of the lead identifier. Claim 11 recites additional details (i.e. confirmation) of a first lead requirement. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
further comprising a database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. In additional to the additional elements recited previously, the non-underlined additional element of a database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to populate the database, the data table, the cache, or the storage drive with sales, order, and/or distribution data.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 13 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to populate the database, the data table, the cache, or the storage drive with customer data.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 14 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to schedule appointments for licensees.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 14 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to send reminders regarding the scheduled appointments.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 16 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to automatically terminate a lease where a licensee or licensor fail to meet the terms or conditions set forth in the lease.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 17 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
upon receiving the answer to the electronic request, generating the portal account, accessible on the graphical user interface, for the entity associated with the lead identifier.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Claim 17 does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the portal account is configured to enable the entity to perform one or more of:
accessing compliance workflows with status tracking and evidence capture; or
submit one or more dealership requests.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. In additional to the additional elements recited previously, the non-underlined additional element of “portal account is configured to enable…”, represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea of franchising. And, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea of franchising, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 recites additional characteristics of the dealership changes. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of franchising. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 22-24
Independent claim 22:
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 22-24 is directed to a method (‘process’). Therefore, the claim falls within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 22 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of franchising. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, using a computing device comprising a processor and a memory, a selection of a territory from a potential dealer;
determining, using the computing device, whether the territory is taken;
determining, at a management platform, whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by the potential dealer;
sending, by the management platform, an electronic approval request for the potential dealer;
maintaining, in a territory registry, a territory state comprising an available state, a taken state, and a deactivated state;
when the territory state is the taken state, registering the potential dealer on a waitlist and persisting the registration with a timestamp;
detecting, using the computing device, whether a territory associated with a dealer is in the deactivated state; and
using the computing device, when the territory associated with the dealer is in the deactivated state, automatically notifying the potential dealer and promoting the potential dealer from the waitlist.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, claim 22 recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of franchising including evaluation of dealer territory request, determination of leads requirements, approval request and territory waitlist management. Additionally, the claims recite “determine whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied…”, “maintaining, in a territory registry, a territory state…”, “when the territory state is the taken state, registering the potential dealer on a waitlist…”, “detecting…whether a territory associated with a dealer is in the deactivated state…”, which is grouped within “mental processes” that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with pen and paper. The claim is abstract ideas because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “using a computing device comprising a processor and a memory,” and “a management platform,” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 22, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, at the management platform, an answer responding to the electronic approval request; and
in response to receiving the answer, automatically forwarding, by the management platform, an electronic license and distribution request to an entity associated with the potential dealer.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. The claim does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 24 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
further comprising a trigger, responsive to the approval signal, configured to automatically generate an email address associated with a portal account, wherein the portal account, accessible via a graphical user interface, gated by the management platform, is configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of franchising. In additional to the additional elements recited previously, the non-underlined additional element of “trigger…configured to…”, “portal account is configured to …”, represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea of franchising. And, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea of franchising, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter
The amendment filed on 12/12/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Claim 22 recites the limitations, “maintaining, in a territory registry, a territory state comprising an available state, a taken state, and a deactivated state; when the territory state is the taken state, registering the potential dealer on a waitlist and persisting the registration with a timestamp; detecting, using the computing device, whether a territory associated with a dealer is in the deactivated state; and using the computing device, when the territory associated with the dealer is in the deactivated state, automatically notifying the potential dealer and promoting the potential dealer from the waitlist”. Applicant’s disclosure (PGPub US 20240119548) is silent on territory registry with various territory states, and does not provide support of maintaining, in a territory registry, a territory state comprising an available state, a taken state, and a deactivated state; when the territory state is the taken state, registering the potential dealer on a waitlist and persisting the registration with a timestamp; detecting, using the computing device, whether a territory associated with a dealer is in the deactivated state; and using the computing device, when the territory associated with the dealer is in the deactivated state, automatically notifying the potential dealer and promoting the potential dealer from the waitlist. The specification discloses “According to various embodiments, when the dealer occupying the selected territory is deactivated, then, at 440, the system 125 may be configured to automatically go into a waitlist queue and sends a Notice of Territory Availability to the potential dealer.” (see paragraph [0085])
Claims 23-24 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 22.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claims 1, 9 and 18 each recites “in response to the answer comprising an approval signal, automatically provisioning, by the management platform: an email address…and the portal account…” The specification is silent about the claimed step of “provisioning.” The specification (PGPub US 20240119548) describes upon receiving the answer to the electronic approval request, generating a portal account (see paragraph [0011]). And the specification discloses “…generating an email address for each lead that LRE 108 approves as a licensee” (see paragraph [0033]). Therefore, the claims are unclear because the claimed limitations above are not in line with the specification.
Claims 1, 9 and 18 each recites “the portal account…configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active”. Claim 20 recites “…the portal account is configured to enable the entity to access compliance workflows with status tracking and evidence capture; or submit one or more dealership change requests.” Claim 24 recites the limitations, “wherein the portal account, accessible via a graphical user interface, gated by the management platform, is configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license active”. Paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s disclosure (PGPub 20240119548) disclose:
[0034] According to various embodiments, another exemplary trigger includes generating a dealer portal account for, and/or enabling access to the dealer portal account to, each lead that LRE 108 approves as a licensee after license formation. Consistent with various embodiments, the dealer portal may be configured to enable data transfers between the dealer and the MP 120, configured to enable a dealer to access compliance information (e.g., notifications concerning failure to maintain compliance) and/or configured to enable a dealer to indicate one or more dealership changes, such as, for example, the addition of one or more associates, the addition of a location, the moving of a location, the closing of a location, the selling of a location, and/or other suitable dealership changes.
The specification describes the portal account configured to enable a dealer to access compliance information not compliance workflows. The specification does not describe the portal account being configured to expose compliance workflows and being configured to enable the entity to access compliance workflows. Therefore, the claims are unclear because the claimed limitations above are not in line with the specification.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 1. Claims 10-17 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 9. Claims 19-21 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 18.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 24 recites “a trigger, responsive to the approval signal...” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, “the approval signal.”
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher, N. (US 2002/0188483A1 (“Fisher”)) in view of Isbell et al. (US 2009/0164280A1 (“Isbell”)) further in view of Crespo et al. (US 2007/0299920A1 (“Crespo”))
Per Claims 1, 9 and 18: Fisher discloses a method:
using a management platform comprising a communications interface, one or more processors, and a memory: (Fig. 1; ¶89)
receiving, at a management platform (claim 1 ‘an electronic system for the Franchise industry’), a lead identifier (Fig. 3, step 305, Fig. 7, step 705, Fig. 19E ‘My Leads’; ¶¶127-130, 201; claim 1);
determining, at the management platform, whether one or more lead requirements has been satisfied by the lead identifier (Fig. 7, step 710; ¶¶127-130, 196);
sending, by the management platform, an electronic approval request for the lead identifier (Fig. 7, step 712; ¶¶127-130, 196); and
receiving, at the management platform, an answer responding to the electronic approval request (Fig. 7, step 712; ¶¶127-130);
in response to the answer comprising an approval signal, automatically provisioning, by the management platform: (¶110)
[login information] generated in response to an approval response to the electronic approval request and associated with a portal account; and (¶110)
the portal account, accessible via a graphical user interface and gated by the management platform, (¶¶110)…
in response to receiving the answer, automatically forwarding, by the management platform, an electronic license and distribution request to an entity associated with the lead identifier; (Fig. 15; ¶¶181-182; claim 1)
recording, by the management platform, information associated with the approval and the portal account. (Fig. 1; ¶¶93-94, 110)
Additionally, for claim 9, Fisher discloses:
the system comprising: a management platform comprising a communications interface, a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the steps of executing one or more computing modules stored in the memory for (Fig. 1; ¶89; claim 1)
triggering the transmission of electronic approval requests for the lead identifiers (Fig. 7, step 712; ¶¶127-130, 196); and
Additionally, for claim 18, Fisher discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps of: (Fig. 1; ¶89; claim 1)
triggering the transmission of an electronic approval request for the lead identifier (Fig. 7, step 712; ¶¶127-130, 196); and
Fisher discloses the portal account being created (¶110). However, Fisher does not explicitly disclose the portal account configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active.
Isbell discloses the portal account configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active. (Fig. Fig. 29-32, Fig. 46-53; ¶¶5, 58-59, 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for franchise finance, real estate and supplier relationship management of Fisher to incorporate the teachings of providing compliance information and franchise administration features on portal account, as disclosed in Isbell, to improve managing franchise information (Isbell: ¶3), and compliance monitoring (Isbell: ¶4).
Fisher discloses the portal account being created with login information (¶110).
Fisher does not explicitly disclose an email address.
Crespo discloses an email generated for login (¶¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isabell to incorporate the teachings of generation of email address, as disclosed in Crespo, to improve better security. (Crespo: ¶72).
Furthermore, the expressions, “an email address generated…” and “the portal account…configured to…” do not differentiate the claims from the prior art because the language, “generated” and “configured”, does not further describe previously claimed method steps of generating and configuring.
Additionally, the limitations “…automatically provisioning, by the management platform:…the portal account…configured to expose compliance workflows and dealership-change tools only while a license is active…” recite optional language. (MPEP §2143.03 states “…Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation...”)
Per claim 2: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Fisher further discloses:
receiving, at the management platform, an indication that at least an initial lead requirement has been fulfilled by the entity associated with the lead identifier (Fig. 14, Fig. 15; ¶¶175, 181-182).
Per claim 4: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Fisher further discloses:
receiving, at the management platform, a calendar request and scheduling, by the management platform, an appointment for the entity associated with the lead identifier (Fig. 12; ¶¶161; claims 11/23).
Per claim 5, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Isbell discloses:
periodically reporting, by the management platform, sales and distribution data associated with the lead identifier to a licensor (¶¶31, 34, 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of periodically reporting sales and distribution data associated with the lead identifier to a licensor, as disclosed in Isbell, so information about an entire franchise lifecycle, from initiation to termination, can be captured and managed (Isbell: ¶8).
Per claim 6, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Isbell further discloses:
determining, by the management platform, whether the sales and distribution data has been reported (¶37-38); and
sending, by the management platform, a warning in response to a lack of sales and distribution data associated with the lead identifier (¶39-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of determining whether the sales and distribution data has been reported and sending a warning in response to a lack of sales and distribution data associated with the lead identifier, as well as sending a warning in response to a lack of sales and distribution data associated with the lead identifier, as disclosed in Isbell, to improve managing franchise information (Isbell: ¶3), and compliance monitoring (Isbell: ¶4).
Per claim 7, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Isbell further discloses:
transmitting, by the management platform, a warning message to the entity associated with the lead identifier (¶39-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of transmitting a warning message to the entity associated with the lead identifier, as disclosed in Isbell, to improve managing franchise information (Isbell: ¶3), and compliance monitoring (Isbell: ¶4).
Per claim 8, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Isabell further discloses:
terminating, by the management platform, the license, electronically, with the entity associated with the lead identifier (¶¶31, 64-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of terminating the license electronically with the entity associated with the lead identifier, as disclosed in Isbell, to improve managing franchise information (Isbell: ¶3), and compliance monitoring (Isbell: ¶4).
Per claim 10: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 9, Fisher further discloses:
wherein the lead identifiers include names or telephone numbers associated with a plurality of leads (Fig. 19E; ¶201; claim 1).
Per claim 11: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Fisher further discloses:
wherein a first lead requirement includes confirmation of securing a contract for a sale, lease, or rental of real property (Fig. 14, step 1420; ¶¶171-172).
Per claim 12: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Fisher further discloses:
a database, a data table, a cache, or a storage drive (Fig. 1, item 155; ¶¶90-92; claim 1).
Per claim 13: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Fisher further discloses:
to populate the database, the data table, the cache, or the storage drive with sales, order, and/or distribution data (Fig. 1, item 155, Fig. 19E; ¶¶56, 201; claim 1).
Per claim 14: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Fisher further discloses:
to populate the database, the data table, the cache, or the storage drive with customer data (Fig. 1, item 155, Fig. 19E/19F; ¶¶56, 201; claim 1).
Per claim 15: Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Fisher further discloses:
to schedule appointments for licensees (Fig. 12; ¶161; claims 11/23).
Per claim 17, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Isbell discloses:
automatically terminate a lease where a licensee or licensor fail to meet the terms or conditions set forth in the lease (¶¶34, 64-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of automatically terminating a lease where a licensee or licensor fail to meet the terms or conditions set forth in the lease, as disclosed in Isbell, to improve managing franchise information (Isbell: ¶3), and compliance monitoring (Isbell: ¶4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo as applied to claim 1 further in view of Kling et al. (US 2007/0094038A1 (“Kling”)).
Per claim 3, Fisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo does not disclose:
receiving and processing, at the management platform, an initial request for distribution of goods or services.
Kling discloses:
receiving and processing, at the management platform, an initial request for distribution of goods or services (¶27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of receiving and processing an initial request for distribution of goods or services, as disclosed in Kling, so the franchisor also provides centralized sales, marketing, distribution, and account support to the franchisees. (Kling: ABSTRACT).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo as applied to claim 15 further in view of Kapadia et al. (US 2004/0143476A1 (“Kapadia”)).
Per claim 16, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
However, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo does not disclose:
send reminders regarding the scheduled appointments.
Kapadia discloses:
send reminders regarding the scheduled appointments (¶188).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of sending appointment reminder (Kapadia: ¶188) of Kapadia for setting up appointments. (Kapadia: ¶176).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo as applied to claim 18 further in view of Diana, M. (US 11,676,203B2 (“Diana”)).
Per claim 19, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo discloses all the limitations of claim 18 and wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor to perform the step of (Fig. 1; ¶89; claim 1).
However, Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo does not disclose:
upon receiving the answer to the electronic approval request, generating the portal account, accessible on the graphical user interface, for the entity associated with the lead identifier.
Diana discloses:
upon receiving the answer to the electronic approval request, generating the portal account, accessible on the graphical user interface, for the entity associated with the lead identifier. (24:50-58, 25:5-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isbell and Crespo to incorporate the teachings of generation of a portable account, as disclosed in Diana, in order to improve the speed and efficiency associated with approval processing. (Diana: 3:60-61).
Per claim 20, Fisher in view of Isbell, Crespo and Diana discloses all the limitations of claim 19.
Isbell discloses:
wherein the portal account is configured to enable the entity to: access compliance workflows with status tracking and evidence capture; or submit one or more dealership change requests. (¶¶58-59, 65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Isbell, Crespo and Diana to incorporate the teachings of the portal account enabling accessing compliance workflows, as disclosed in Isbell, for compliance monitoring and reporting. (Isbell: ¶7)
Additionally, the claim recites “the portal account is configured to…” The claim does not positively recite a step of configuring ‘the portal account.’ Therefore the limitation, “the portal account is configured to…” does not further limit the method and will not differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Isbell, Crespo and Diana as applied to claim 20 further in view of Moshenek, R. (US 2014/0012616A1 (“Moshenek”)).
Per claim 21, Fisher in view of Isbell, Crespo and Diana discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Moshenek discloses:
wherein the one or more dealership changes comprise one or more of the following: an addition of one or more associates; an addition of a location; a moving of a location; a closing of a location; or a selling of a location, and each of the one or more dealership changes are recorded as an event. (¶¶61, 88)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fisher in view of Isbell, Crespo and Diana to incorporate the teachings of dealership locations tracking, as disclosed in Moshenek, in order to improve efficiency in online work management. (Moshenek: ¶2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mohr (US 2009/0006159A1) teaches managing sales leads.
Hsieh (US 2019/0385252A1) teaches lead management system for digital real-estate referrals.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697