DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 3 March 2026 in regard to application no. 18/790,157. Claims 2, 3, 11, 12 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-19 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 March 2026 has been entered.
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, 4-10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), system (machine) or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture). The claim(s) recite(s) two data gathering steps (receiving a request to determine a value for a service order and fetching adjustments from a data store), three steps of generating values related to the service order in no particular manner but merely using the available data, a step of (for example) authorizing a transaction, and a step of providing output.
First, providing a value for, and authorizing, a service order are both fundamental business practices and commercial interactions, each of which is among the "certain methods of organizing human activity" deemed abstract. Second, these are mental steps which, in the absence of computers, can be practically performed in the human mind and using paper records.
A service provider - one example is an automotive service technician or quoter - can be asked by a customer to provide a quote for a particular service, can consult paper records to determine costs, upgrades and any available discounts, can generate the various values mentally and/or by writing them down, and can provide a result to the customer, e.g. verbally or by writing it on paper. The customer can authorize the service based on his own perception of risk. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to service orders, risks, discounts and the like, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
Claim 10, which has the most, includes a processor, memory storing instructions, and access to a database. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 57, that nothing more than a "general-purpose computer" is required. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated; claims 6 and 15 simply require making an additional determination in no particular manner; claims 7 and 16 combine making a determination with providing additional output.
The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally-filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection.
For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 - 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance", 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhodapkar (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0047509) in view of Turner et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0095658).
In-line citations are to Dhodapkar.
With regard to Claim 1:
Dhodapkar teaches: A method performed by a computing system, [0254; any of various types of computers perform the functions] comprising:
receiving, via a first user interface, a request to determine a first value for a first service order; [abstract; 0037; the system monitors requests; the request may be to perform a transaction for a particular "transaction amount"; 0053; the request is performed by a "payment service"]
retrieving, via a first database, a plurality of adjustments, wherein the plurality of adjustments comprise at least a discount and an uplift; [0221; the amount may be adjusted by a "discount"; 0272; additional fees may be charged by the payment service, which reads on the applicant's use of an uplift; 0384; all the data can be stored in a "datastore" which may comprise "databases"]
generating the first value by applying the plurality of adjustments to a plurality of component values associated with the first service order; [0239; a total amount due is calculated and displayed; 0026; the payment processor performs a plurality of "services" in regard to the payment]
generating a second value associated with the first service order by carrying forward the plurality of adjustments to be applied to one or more follow-on component values of the first service order; [id.; the totaling reads on this; 0146; the data may be later modified]
generating, based on the second value, a third value corresponding to a risk associated with the first service order... in response to generating the third value… [0176; it "can generate an internal metric" representing a "risk" associated with creditworthiness; this is used to make a determination e.g. what offer(s) to present]
Dhodapkar does not explicitly teach automatically executing an action regarding the first service order among a plurality of predefined actions, the plurality of predefined actions comprising 1) authorizing the first service order, 2) pausing the first service order until user authorization is received, and 3) rejecting the first service order, or displaying, in the first user interface, a first graphical element with the second value and an indication of the executed action regarding the first service order, but it is known in the art. Turner teaches a logistics system [title] which allows for “authorized access” and displaying “available services” to a supplier. [0120] Various of the services are performed, [0052] which reads on their having been authorized. An invoice is displayed on a dashboard that provide information about the services performed and moneys due. [0121] Turner and Dhodapkar are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Turner with that of Dhodapkar in order to ensure proper process execution, as taught by Turner; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Turner’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Dhodapkar; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, the content of information that is simply displayed or transmitted and then not further processed, such as “the second value and an indication of the executed action regarding the first service order”, consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of component values further comprise an immediate component. [0229; certain information may be manged in "real-time or near-real-time]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as referring to a component as an "immediate component", without more, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 10:
Dhodapkar teaches: A system comprising:
at least one processor; [0352; "one or more processors"] and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause operations [0353-54; a memory stores instructions upon which the processor operates] comprising:
receiving, via a first user interface, a request to determine a first value for a first service order; [abstract; 0037; the system monitors requests; the request may be to perform a transaction for a particular "transaction amount"; 0053; the request is performed by a "payment service"]
retrieving, via a first database, a plurality of adjustments, wherein the plurality of adjustments comprise at least a discount and an uplift; [0221; the amount may be adjusted by a "discount"; 0272; additional fees may be charged by the payment service, which reads on the applicant's use of an uplift; 0384; all the data can be stored in a "datastore" which may comprise "databases"]
generating the first value by applying the plurality of adjustments to a plurality of component values associated with the first service order; [0239; a total amount due is calculated and displayed; 0026; the payment processor performs a plurality of "services" in regard to the payment]
generating a second value associated with the first service order by carrying forward the plurality of adjustments to be applied to one or more follow-on component values of the first service order; [id.; the totaling reads on this; 0146; the data may be later modified]
generating, based on the second value, a third value corresponding to a risk associated with the first service order... in response to generating the third value… [0176; it "can generate an internal metric" representing a "risk" associated with creditworthiness; this is used to make a determination e.g. what offer(s) to present]
Dhodapkar does not explicitly teach automatically executing an action regarding the first service order among a plurality of predefined actions, the plurality of predefined actions comprising 1) authorizing the first service order, 2) pausing the first service order until user authorization is received, and 3) rejecting the first service order, or displaying, in the first user interface, a first graphical element with the second value and an indication of the executed action regarding the first service order, but it is known in the art. Turner teaches a logistics system [title] which allows for “authorized access” and displaying “available services” to a supplier. [0120] Various of the services are performed, [0052] which reads on their having been authorized. An invoice is displayed on a dashboard that provide information about the services performed and moneys due. [0121] Turner and Dhodapkar are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Turner with that of Dhodapkar in order to ensure proper process execution, as taught by Turner; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Turner’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Dhodapkar; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 13:
The system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of component values further comprise an immediate component. [0229; certain information may be manged in "real-time or near-real-time]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 10, as referring to a component as an "immediate component", without more, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 19:
Dhodapkar teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one data processor, result in operations [0352-54; a memory stores instructions upon which a processor operates] comprising:
receiving, via a first user interface, a request to determine a first value for a first service order; [abstract; 0037; the system monitors requests; the request may be to perform a transaction for a particular "transaction amount"; 0053; the request is performed by a "payment service"]
retrieving, via a first database, a plurality of adjustments, wherein the plurality of adjustments comprise at least a discount and an uplift; [0221; the amount may be adjusted by a "discount"; 0272; additional fees may be charged by the payment service, which reads on the applicant's use of an uplift; 0384; all the data can be stored in a "datastore" which may comprise "databases"]
generating the first value by applying the plurality of adjustments to a plurality of component values associated with the first service order; [0239; a total amount due is calculated and displayed; 0026; the payment processor performs a plurality of "services" in regard to the payment]
generating a second value associated with the first service order by carrying forward the plurality of adjustments to be applied to one or more follow-on component values of the first service order; [id.; the totaling reads on this; 0146; the data may be later modified]
generating, based on the second value, a third value corresponding to a risk associated with the first service order... in response to generating the third value… [0176; it "can generate an internal metric" representing a "risk" associated with creditworthiness; this is used to make a determination e.g. what offer(s) to present]
Dhodapkar does not explicitly teach automatically executing an action regarding the first service order among a plurality of predefined actions, the plurality of predefined actions comprising 1) authorizing the first service order, 2) pausing the first service order until user authorization is received, and 3) rejecting the first service order, or displaying, in the first user interface, a first graphical element with the second value and an indication of the executed action regarding the first service order, but it is known in the art. Turner teaches a logistics system [title] which allows for “authorized access” and displaying “available services” to a supplier. [0120] Various of the services are performed, [0052] which reads on their having been authorized. An invoice is displayed on a dashboard that provide information about the services performed and moneys due. [0121] Turner and Dhodapkar are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Turner with that of Dhodapkar in order to ensure proper process execution, as taught by Turner; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Turner’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Dhodapkar; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhodapkar in view of Turner et al. further in view of Freis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0351296).
Claims 5 and 14 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 4, wherein the immediate component is determined based on an individual agreement for the first service order.
With regard to Claim 14:
The system of claim 13, wherein the immediate component is determined based on an individual agreement for the first service order.
Dhodapkar and Turner teach the method of claim 4 and system of claim 13, but do not explicitly teach determining a component based on an agreement, but it is known in the art. Freis teaches a risk visualization process [title] which can manage pricing related to services performed by a third-party service provider in which an agreement is required, including making adjustments. [0013-14] Freis and Dhodapkar are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing financial arrangements related to provision of services.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Freis with Dhodapkar and Turner in order to mitigate risks, as taught by Freis; [0017] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining a component of a service on Freis' basis rather than, or in addition to, those of Dhodapkar; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, further comprising determining the plurality of adjustments from a first service agreement between a first customer and a service provider. [Freis, as cited above in regard to claim 5]
With regard to Claim 15:
The system of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise determining the plurality of adjustments from a first service agreement between a first customer and a service provider. [Freis, as cited above in regard to claim 14]
Claim(s) 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhodapkar in view of Turner et al. further in view of Stone et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0261712.
Claims 7 and 16 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the risk associated with the first service order based at least on one or more risk-related component values associated with the first service order; and
generating and displaying, via the first user interface, a third graphical element indicating how to manage the risk.
With regard to Claim 16:
The system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the risk associated with the first service order based at least on one or more risk-related components associated with the first service order; and
generating and displaying, via the first user interface, a third graphical element indicating how to manage the risk.
Dhodapkar and Turner teach the method of claim 1 and system of claim 10, including managing risk, [e.g. Dhodapkar, 0265] but do not explicitly teach indicating how to manage a risk, but it is known in the art. Stone teaches a supplier procurement system [title] which can provide "suggested amendments" to an agreement in order to "minimize or mitigate risks". [0069] Stone and Dhodapkar are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing financial arrangements between parties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Stone with that of Dhodapkar and Turner in order to mitigate risks, as taught by Stone; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing the output of Stone in place of, or in addition to, that of Dhodapkar; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein the third graphical element includes an indication that the user authorization is required for the first service order based on the risk.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 7, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 7, wherein the third graphical element includes an indication that the first service order is automatically approved based on the risk.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 7, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 17:
The system of claim 16, wherein the third graphical element includes an indication that the user authorization is required for the first service order based on the risk.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 16, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 18:
The system of claim 16, wherein the third graphical element includes an indication that the first service order is automatically approved based on the risk.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 16, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, managing services is not a “technical field” and does not become so merely because computers are used to manage the data. That long-term service jobs are difficult to manually evaluate is a routine problem of doing business and not a technical problem.
The non-abstract claim limitations are entirely well-understood, routine and conventional; computers, processors, memory and user interfaces have been ubiquitous for many decades. The steps they perform lie entirely within the realm of the abstractions. Considerations of financial risk are business and not technical issues.
The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 13-19 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, arguments regarding Basu are moot as Basu is not used as a basis for any rejection herein. In so far as the arguments focus on language added by amendment, the Examiner has incorporated herein the teaching of Turner to meet the added limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights