DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/809,117 filed on 08/19/2024, in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on May 11, 2026. Claims 28-47 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 18/809,117 filed 08/19/2024 is a Continuation of application 17/305,109, filed 06/30/2021.
Response to Amendment
4. In the response filed May 11, 2026, Applicant amended claims 28, 32, 39, 43, and 45, and did not cancel any claims. No new claim was presented for examination.
5. Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
6. The previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 was withdrawn [See Office action dated 02/10/2026]
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “that the instant claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1).” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 11]
In response, the Examiner agrees.
9. Applicant submits “First, the instant claims do not fall under any of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas….The instant claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity or a mathematical concept.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 11]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the claim organizes information through user interface elements, user selections, and modal windows to determine rule-based eligibility, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claim also generates data fields and calculates productivity loss, involving mathematical evaluation and computations. The recitation of a generic computer system with one or more processors and memory does not meaningfully limit the claim, as it merely automates these abstract steps without providing a technological improvement. At its core, the claim describes, displaying GUI elements representing criteria, receiving user selection of an element, generating data fields by mapping geographical information and jurisdictional information, calculating a productivity loss and an amount for a condition and displaying the results in a modal window. This is fundamentally organizing information and performing calculations based on rules. The invention still recites an abstract idea of organizing and analyzing info about employers and employees to determine eligibility for tax incentive, which involves applying rule based calculations to data. The claim still recites limitations related to collecting and evaluating information to determine eligibility and calculating a tax incentive amount according to rules and criteria, which calls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “Like the subject matter in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the instant claims describe a particular manner of improving how users interact with information being presented by a computing device, rather than merely automating a business process or displaying results.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 12]
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “Like the subject matter in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the instant claims describe a particular manner of improving how users interact with information being presented by a computing device, rather than merely automating a business process or displaying results,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Applicant's comparison to Core Wireless, Examiner points out that the claims in Core Wireless involved an improved user interface for computing devices, which was not an abstract idea. While the generic idea of summarizing information was known, the claims were directed to a “particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices” that improved the efficiency of the electronic device over the prior art. As stated in Core Wireless, the claim recites a computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state. The claims at issue are far different from the claims in Core Wireless. The claims of the present case involve a method for determining a tax incentive amount. Providing, for display, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, receiving an indication of a selection of an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, generating a set of data fields based on a mapping between geographical information and jurisdictional information obtained from one or more sources, providing, for display, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, determining a productivity loss, determining an amount for the rule-based condition, and providing, for display on the graphical user interface, the amount in a first modal window of the set of modal windows does not improve the efficiency of the apparatus. The claims of the instant application are not directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, as the claims in Core Wireless recite. Here, the claim merely provides, for display on the graphical user interface, the amount in a first modal window of the set of modal windows. In the claims/specification here for example, there is no improved interface, improved navigation between menus, or ability to see statuses in un-launched states, as in Core Wireless. The claimed interface limitations merely display and organize information associated with the abstract idea rather than improve the functioning of the computer or interface technology itself. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “Even assuming, arguendo, that the instant claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application by reciting specific GUI mechanisms that improve computer functionality. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Guidance")). For example, independent claim 28 recites controlled management of overlapping modal windows, including preventing selection of interactive elements within background window(s), allowing interaction with a foreground modal window, and controlling window arrangement via window selection. These features constitute a technical solution to a GUI state-management problem, not mere presentation of information.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 12]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application by reciting specific GUI mechanisms that improve computer functionality,” it is noted that the additional elements in amended claim 28 are: one or more processors, coupled with memory, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence, cited any portion of the Specification, nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It is also noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no processors, memory, graphical user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to a tax incentive amount, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Last, in response to Applicant’s assertion that “independent claim 28 recites controlled management of overlapping modal windows, including preventing selection of interactive elements within background window(s), allowing interaction with a foreground modal window, and controlling window arrangement via window selection. These features constitute a technical solution to a GUI state-management problem, not mere presentation of information,” it is noted that this argument is not persuasive because the limitations related to modal window interactions and selection restrictions do not provide a specific technical solution to a GUI state management problem, but instead reflect conventional window focus and modality behavior. Rather, these features merely apply generic techniques to implement the underlying abstract idea of process an presenting rule based information. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality it user interface technology, but merely automates these abstract process using generic computer components. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant submits “the instant claims are closely analogous to USPTO Guidance Example 23, in which claims directed to managing overlapping GUI windows were found eligible because they improved the computer's ability to display and manage information. Like Example 23, the instant claims dynamically control interaction pathways at the GUI level to ensure that relevant information (e.g., in foreground window) remains actionable while invalid interactions (e.g., in background window(s)) are prevented.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 13]
In response to Applicant’s attempt suggestion that “Like Example 23, the instant claims dynamically control interaction pathways at the GUI level to ensure that relevant information (e.g., in foreground window) remains actionable while invalid interactions (e.g., in background window(s)) are prevented,” Examiner refers Applicant to Example 23 (from the July 2015 Update – Appendix 1), which relates to a graphical user interface (GUI). The Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims are distinguishable from claim 1 of Example 23 for at least the following three reasons: First, in contrast to Applicant’s claims, claim 1 of Example 23 does not set forth or describe an abstract idea. Second, while claim 1 of Example 23 addresses a problem with overlapping windows within a graphical user interface, Applicant’s claims address a problem of “automatically calculating tax credits values based on data from human capital management systems” (Specification at paragraph 0007) which, in contrast to the overlapping windows of a GUI in Example 23, predates computer technology. While Applicant’s claims rely on generic computing elements to implement the provide, receive, generate, provide, determine, determine, and provide, these elements are conventional and do not, individually or collectively, yield any technological improvement. Third, claim 1 of Example 23 is directed to the field of graphical user interfaces (GUI), solves a problem related thereto, and imposes limitations that manipulate and transform textual information, which is then displayed in the window of a GUI. In contrast, Applicant’s claims merely tie steps for determining a productivity loss, determining an amount for a rule-based condition according to the geographical information associated with the criterion, the productivity loss, and the set of data fields, and providing the amount to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment), but fail to describe an inventive concept or solution since they rely on routine components and techniques, and fail to provide limitations that manipulate, transform, or improve upon a graphical user interface or any other technology. For at least these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
13. Applicant submits “Further, even if individual elements are somehow considered conventional (for the sake of arguments, which they are not), the specific ordered combination of multi-source data mapping, modal window foreground and background control, and interaction prevention amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under BASCOM Global Internet Services V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 13]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “the specific ordered combination of multi-source data mapping, modal window foreground and background control, and interaction prevention amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under BASCOM.” In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s citation to BASCOM, the Examiner points out that the Federal Circuit found that the claims in BASCOM included a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements, including installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. In contrast, Applicant's claims have not been shown to encompass a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements. The additional elements of one or more processors, coupled with memory, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows have not been shown to be used or arranged in any unconventional manner or non-generic manner, and therefore the analogy to the CAFC’s eligibility rationale in the BASCOM decision is not persuasive. For the reasons above in addition to the reasons set forth below in the updated §101 rejection, the arguments and amendments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
14. Applicant submits “Additionally, Example 37 of the 2019 PEG ("Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface") provides further support. In Example 37, claim 1 was found eligible at Step 2A Prong Two because the additional elements recited "a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices." The analysis concluded that "[t]he claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application" because the GUI- specific features provided a concrete improvement to how the user interface functioned. Similarly here, claim 28 recites dynamically controlling interaction pathways at the GUI level to ensure that relevant information remains actionable while invalid interactions are prevented, which is precisely the type of GUI-specific improvement found eligible in Example 37.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, pages 13-14]
In addition, Applicant argues against the §101 rejection by seeking to analogize to “Example 37 - Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface” from Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 37-42, which was deemed eligible based, at least in part, on a finding that the claims were directed to an improved user interface. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In contrast to the claimed solution in Example 37, Applicant’s interface is used merely as a means to facilitate presentation of output to a user, such that the user interface in Applicant’s claims, in contrast to the interface in Example 37, amounts to using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea or at most insignificant extra-solution output activity ancillary thereto. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
With respect to Applicant's comparison to Example 37, Examiner points out that the claims in Example 37 integrated the mental process into a practical application by reciting "a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems." The claims at issue are far different from the claims in Example 37. The claims of the present case involve a method of determining a tax incentive amount. The claims at issue do not recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems. Applicant’s claimed invention is not specifically directed to rearranging icons on a graphical user interface, as in Example 37. In Example 37, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. In contrast, Applicant's claims and specification do not identify any technological deficiency in the prior art that is resolved by Applicant’s invention, and certainly nothing comparable to the deficiencies in typical arrangement of icons, and interfaces related thereto.
The Examiner further emphasizes that the focus of the solution in Example 37 was on the interface’s ability to automatically organize icons so that the most used icons are located near the “start” or “home” icon, where they can be easily accessed, yielding an improvement to the computer itself via the improvement to the interface, thereby improving the computer as a tool. In contrast, the focus of Applicant’s claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
15. Applicant submits “Furthermore, although the claim does not recite a method of organizing human activity, example 42 of the USPTO Guidance provides an example of organizing human activity shown to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim was integrated into a practical application by reciting a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non- standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 28 provides additional elements such as generating a set of data fields based on a mapping, and controlled management of overlapping modal windows, including preventing interactions to background window(s), allowing interactions with a foreground modal window, and controlling window arrangement via respective interactions with the window(s). Applicant respectfully submits that the above recited language of claim 28 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 14]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Applicant's comparison to Example 42, Examiner points out that the claims in Example 42 involved a method for transmission of notifications when medical records are updated. As stated in Example 42, the claim is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim in Example 42 recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim in Example 42 as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. The claims at issue are far different from the claims in Example 42. The claims of the present case involve a method for calculating tax credits values from human capital data. The additional elements of the instant application do not recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, amended claim 28 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
16. Applicant submits “that even if the claims recite an abstract idea (for the sake of arguments, which Applicant does not concede), the claimed invention provides features which are significantly more than the abstract idea. For instance, the claimed invention includes a combination of the specific GUI structure (including GUI elements) discussed hereinabove, data mapping, disabling or enabling modal windows, preventing interactions within modal window(s), and autonomous calculation which are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Such claimed features do not merely automate a known manual process, but provide a new, non-conventional solution to a technical problem in computerized rule-based condition amount determination.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, pages 14-15]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “the claimed invention provides features which are significantly more than the abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims merely produce a result in the form of an amount, which is not an improvement to the one or more processors, memory, graphical user interface, or any other system or technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the processors, memory, graphical user interface, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The claim still recites generic processor implemented steps for presenting information, receiving user input and performing rule based calculation, including standard modal window behavior for displaying information in the foreground and disabling interaction with background windows. The additional recitations do not amount to an unconventional technical improvement. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
17. Applicant submits “that the claims recite a "particular solution" to a technical problem, rather than merely claiming the "idea of a solution or outcome." The MPEP instructs that "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15). The claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of "determining a tax incentive and displaying it." Rather, they recite a particular solution: generating data fields through a specific mapping between geographical and jurisdictional information; using a specific modal window architecture that disables background interactions to prevent erroneous user input; incorporating productivity loss into the determination; and controlling the arrangement of modal windows through a selection-based mechanism that prevents interactions within non-selected windows. This is a specific, concrete technological approach to managing complex data presentation, not an abstract outcome.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 16]
With respect to Applicant's comparison to McRO, Examiner points out that the claims in McRO involved a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of three-dimensional characters comprising: obtaining a first set of rules that defines a morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and times associated with said phoneme sequence; obtaining a plurality of sub-sequences of timed phonemes corresponding to a desired audio sequence for said three-dimensional characters; generating an output morph weight set stream by applying said first set of rules to each sub-sequence of said plurality of sub-sequences of timed phonemes. The claims at issue are far different from the claims in McRO. The claims of the present case involve a method of calculating tax credit values based on human capital data. The claims of the instant application do not recite techniques for automatically generating three-dimensional facial expressions matching a prerecorded track of speech. Second, it is noted that the claims in McRO recited a specific asserted improvement in computer animation. In contrast, the claim here is not directed to any improvement in computer functionalities/capabilities - only to provide a tax incentive amount. The focus of the invention is on the algorithms that have been identified as abstract ideas (as opposed to an improvement to operations of the additional elements, improvement to another technology or technical field). The claims of the instant application thus cannot be characterized as an improvement in computer technology.
Further, contrary to the claims in the McRO decision, the additional elements of the instant application are not reliant on the programmed rules to improve intrinsic operations of the additional elements themselves. In McRO, the rules were deemed to allow the additional elements to accomplish a technical feature presumably not accomplished before. The Examiner points out that the claims in McRO did not simply provide a particular solution to a problem, but the claimed invention in McRO was deemed to provide an improvement in the technology. Again, Applicant’s claimed invention does not provide an improvement in the technology. Simply processing a mathematical algorithm alone does not necessarily mean that the underlying operations of a processor are improved. Further, in McRO the courts did not find an Abstract idea in the claims. As the instant claims do contain an abstract idea, they are not similar to the claims in McRO.
It is further noted that the Court in McRO said an improvement in computer-related technology is not limited in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of “rules” basically mathematical relationships that improve computer-related technology by allowing the computer performance of a function not previously performed by a computer. The instant Specification and claims are devoid of any indication that the claimed invention is to a “set of rules (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology". Therefore, the Office finds that the concept present in the McRO is not analogous to the instant claimed invention. Based on the foregoing explanation the Examiner finds that the claims are not like those of McRO Applicant contends, because there is no expressed or implied improvement to a computer-related technology. The claims are not “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate.”
Lastly, in response, it is noted that the alleged “concreted technological approach” amounts to using standard processor executed rules, data retrieval, and conventional window focus management to carry out the underlying abstract idea. The claims does not explain how the purported window arrangement control or interaction blocking improves GUI operation, reduces processing burden, improves latency, or otherwise solves a technical problem in a manner different from conventional windowing systems. Therefore, these features merely apply well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality to implement the abstract idea. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
17. Applicant submits “In reference to the recent precedential decision in Ex Parte Desjardins (as incorporated into the MPEP via the December 5, 2025 Memorandum) ("Desjardins"), Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's rejection does not comply with the principles set forth in Desjardins in several critical respects. First, the December 5, 2025, Memorandum revises the MPEP to provide that "[w]hen evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere "generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system." See Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025). The Office Action's rejection is precisely prohibited by Desjardins because the Office Action simply lists the GUI elements (interface-elements, modal windows, arrangement control) and categorically dismisses them as "generic computing elements" without engaging with whether those specific elements, in their claimed configuration, confer a technological improvement. At no point does the Office Action demonstrate why the specific claimed combination of modal window management features (e.g., disabling interactions with the first window to prevent selection of interactive elements, displaying a first modal window over at least one other disabled modal window, and controlling arrangement of modal windows according to a selection that prevents interactions within background windows) does not constitute a technological improvement to the GUI.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, pages 16-17]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the rejection does not merely characterize the recited GUI elements as generic computer component in a conclusory manner, but instead evaluates them as an ordered combination. The claim does not recite a specific technological mechanism or improvement to GUI operation, but instead describe functional results implemented using generic windowing behavior, which does not demonstrate an improvement to computer functionality or GUI technology. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
18. Applicant submits “Second, the Memorandum emphasizes that "[e]xaminers and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality" that "potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313; Ex Parte Desjardins. Yet, the Office Action characterizes the claims at the highest level of generality as merely "calculating tax credits from human capital data" (Office Action, page 15) and dismisses the specific GUI management features without explaining why these specific limitations are not meaningful. The Office Action conflates the purpose of the system (tax incentive determination) with the technical implementation (the structured modal window interface), thereby evaluating the claims at precisely the level of generality that Desjardins prohibits.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, pages 17-18]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant cites the December 5, 2025 Memorandum regarding Ex Parte Desjardins, the rejection fully considers whether the additional elements if claim 28, including the one or more processors, coupled with memory, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recites generic computing components performing conventional data processing tasks without specifying a particular improvement in the functioning of the computer. Consistent with MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05(f), merely linking conventional computer elements to an abstract idea does not transform the claim into a patent eligible invention. Accordingly, when considered as a whole the claim does not recite a technological improvement under Ex Parte Desjardins and remains directed to an abstract idea. Applicant should amend the claim to clearly recite how the claim elements improve the functioning of the computer or solve a specific technological problem. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
19. Applicant submits “Third, the Memorandum explains that "the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification" and cites Desjardins for the principle that enumerated improvements in the specification, including "allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity" and "the enablement of reduced complexity in the system," were credited as technological improvements reflected in the claims. Importantly, such improvements were found to be "tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation." Similarly, the description enumerates improvements in speed, accuracy, and usability (see, e.g., paragraphs [0054], [0055], and [0062]), and the claimed GUI management features (e.g., disabling, enabling, and controlling the arrangement of modal windows) are tantamount to how the computer's user interface itself would function in operation. These features are not subsumed in any mathematical calculation of incentive amounts, and instead are structural and functional attributes of the GUI that improve the computer system's operation.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 18]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that even when considered in view of the Specification, the identified GUI operations (i.e., provide, for display, a set of modal windows, wherein interatom with the first window are disable to prevent selection of interactive element within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground) are described and claimed at ahigh level of generality and correspond to conventional user interface behavior rather than a specific technological improvement to computer o GUI functionality. The Specification’s reference to general benefits such as improvements in speed, accuracy, and usability do not, without more, establish that the claimed GUI features constitute a specific technical solution or that they are integral to a particular asserted improvement in computer operation, as opposed to being the result of implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing system. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
20. Applicant submits “Fourth, the Memorandum confirms that claims directed to improvements in computer technology are not abstract ideas. Desjardins adds new examples to the MPEP's list of claims that may show an improvement in computer functionality, including "[i]mprovements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters associated with tasks or workstreams." Here, the claimed system similarly improves computer component performance by adjusting the modal window arrangement and interaction parameters based on user selections and foreground or background status, thereby improving the overall system performance in at least the context of managing complex, multi-source data presentation. Accordingly, the Examiner must consider whether the claims, as a whole, reflect the technological improvement disclosed in the Specification, rather than dismissing the claims at an unduly high level of generality.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, pages 18-19]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that
The claim recites limitations related to displaying a set of modal windows, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, and wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows. These limitations describe conventional GUI window modality and focus management behavior for controlling user interactions with displayed interface elements. The claim does not recite any specific parameter adjustments to computer components or system performance, but instead recites generic widow management operations applied to presenting data fields and rule based outputs, which does not reflect a technological improvement to computer functionality. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
21. Applicant submits “Finally, the MPEP instructs that "[i]f the record as a whole suggests that it is more likely than not that the claimed invention would be considered significantly more than an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature, then [the Examiner] should not reject the claim" under 35 U.S.C. § 101. MPEP § 2106(III), (emphasis added). See 80 Fed. Reg. 53-54 ("When evaluating whether an element (or combination of elements) integrates an exception into a practical application, examiners should give careful consideration to both the element and how it is used or arranged in the claim as a whole"). Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, withdrawal of this rejection of claims 28-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is requested.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/24/2026, page 19]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that unlike situations contemplated by the MPEP where it may be “more likely than not” that claim integrates an exception into a practical application, here the claim merely automate rule-based calculations and display information using conventional GUI elements. There is no disclosure of any technical improvement to computer performance, memory, processing, so it is not a close call. The record as whole does not suggest that this is a close case, automating calculation and displaying data on conventional GUI elements does not improve the computer itself, so the claim remains directed to an abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the 101 rejection is appropriate. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
For the reasons above along with the reason provided in the updated §101 rejection below, the amendments and supporting arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
22. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are
directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
23. 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.
24. Claims 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
25. Claims 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 28-38), method (claims 39-44), and computer program product (claims 45-47) are each directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (machine, process, and article of manufacture, respectively), and therefore satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for calculating tax credits from human capital data, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions for performing the determination, and also falls into the “Mathematical Concepts” such as mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations. With respect to independent claim 28, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: provide, for display, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to a respective criterion used to determine an eligibility of a rule-based condition; receive an indication of a selection of an interface-element of the set of interface-elements; generate a set of data fields based on a mapping between geographical information and jurisdictional information obtained from one or more sources, the jurisdictional information associated with the criterion of the selected interface-element, wherein the set of data fields comprises an eligibility date of the rule-based condition and entity data; provide, for display, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground; determine a productivity loss based on the eligibility date and the entity data; determine, based on the set of data fields, an amount for the rule-based condition according to the geographical information associated with the criterion, the productivity loss, and the set of data fields; provide, for display on the graphical user interface, the amount in a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows. These steps are organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions, and may also be performed as mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and /or calculations.
Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of determining a tax incentive for an employer, which falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings set forth in MPEP 2106. Independent claims 39 and 45 recite similar limitations as claim 28 and are therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 28.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited in independent claims 28, 39, and 45 are: one or more processors, coupled with memory, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows (claim 28), one or more processors coupled with memory, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface- element of the set of interface-elements is related, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least a portion of one or more at least one other modal window windows of the first set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows (claim 39), processor-executable instructions, one or more processors, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows (claim 45). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The computing elements may be embodied as generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions/software (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in independent claims 28, 39, and 45 are:
one or more processors, coupled with memory, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows (claim 28), one or more processors coupled with memory, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface- element of the set of interface-elements is related, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least a portion of one or more at least one other modal window windows of the first set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows (claim 39), processor-executable instructions, one or more processors, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related, an interface-element of the set of interface-elements, the selected interface-element, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground, a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows (claim 45). These additional elements have been evaluated, however whether taken alone or as an ordered combination, they fail to add significantly more to the claims. The computing elements may be embodied as generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions/software (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment), which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes generic computing devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (See, e.g., Spec. at paragraph 0111: “For example, processor unit 2004 can be selected from at least one of a multicore processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a network processor, or some other suitable type of processor.”). Accordingly, the generic computing elements and instructions/software do not add significantly more to the claim.
With respect to the “wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground,” it is noted that these elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, which fails to add significantly more to the claims. See, e.g., Dyar et al., US 2016/0092038 A1 (paragraph 0016: “Conventional applications may provide several visible objects where only one visible object is enabled for interactivity or where all visible objects are enabled for interactivity.”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 29-38, 40-44, and 46-47 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more. For example, claims 29-38 recite “wherein the rule-based condition is a tax incentive and the amount for the rule-based condition is a tax incentive amount, and determine an aggregated compensation and the productivity loss based on the eligibility date and the entity data; and compute the tax incentive amount based on the geographical information, the aggregated compensation, and the productivity loss,” “wherein the mapping between the geographical information and the jurisdictional information corresponds to an overlap between a location of operations of an employer and a jurisdictional mandate, respectively,” “provide, for display, the mapping between the geographical information and the jurisdictional information associated with the criterion; and provide, for display, the set of data fields comprising the eligibility date of the rule-based condition and the entity data,” “cause the set of modal windows to be overlayed over at least a portion of the first window,” “cause the first window to be visible through the set of modal windows, and wherein the first window is disabled for displaying at least one of the set of modal windows,” “cause the first window to be disabled to display at least one of the set of modal windows,” “wherein the criterion corresponds to one criterion of a set of criteria, including an eligible employer criterion and a qualified compensation criterion, and identify information relevant to the criterion of the selected interface-element, the information selected from a group comprising payroll information, human resources information, operational information, the jurisdictional information, and combinations thereof, wherein the operational information comprises the geographical information and the jurisdictional information comprises a jurisdictional mandate,” “populate the eligibility date for the rule-based condition based on the jurisdictional mandate; populate work locations for an employer based on the human resources information; and populate the entity data based on the payroll information and the human resources information,” “wherein to determine the amount for the rule-based condition, compute a first portion of the rule-based condition by (i) identifying a number of salaried employees according to the jurisdictional information, (ii) determining an aggregated compensation for the number of salaried employees, (iii) determining a productivity loss for the number of salaried employees, and (iv) calculating the first portion based on the number of salaried employees, the aggregated compensation, and the productivity loss; and compute a second portion of the rule-based condition by (i) identifying a number of hourly employees according to the jurisdictional information, (ii) identifying a qualified compensation paid to the number of hourly employees, and (iii) calculating the second portion based on the number of hourly employees and the qualified compensation,” “generate a document for applying the rule-based condition; and provide, for display, the document, the document comprising the amount,” which are part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea groupings. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include: a second modal window of the set of modal windows and a third modal window (claim 31), the set of modal windows (claim 32), the set of modal windows and at least one of the set of modal windows (claim 33), at least one of the set of modal windows (claim 34), one or more processors (claim 35). However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
26. Claims 28-47 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 28, 39, and 45, the closest prior art, Morrison (US 2012/0022984 A1), Maselli (US 11,468,421 B1), and Kaply et al. (US 5,841,420) collectively teach features for provide, for display, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to a respective criterion used to determine an eligibility of a rule-based condition; receive an indication of a selection of an interface-element of the set of interface-elements; generate a set of data fields based on a mapping between geographical information and jurisdictional information obtained from one or more sources, the jurisdictional information associated with the criterion of the selected interface-element, wherein the set of data fields comprises an eligibility date of the rule-based condition and entity data; provide, for display, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled; and provide, for display on the graphical user interface, the amount in a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows [See Office Action mailed 09/30/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter]
However, while Morrison teaches wherein the rule-based condition is a tax incentive and the amount for the rule-based condition is a tax incentive amount (paragraph 0014, discussing an online web-based software application to calculate the exact, optimal amount of tax credit that a business may receive; paragraph 0029, discussing that the calculator tool includes all required variables in a data format entry form to produce an accurate calculation for a business; paragraph 0031, discussing that they are prompted to enter the total amount of credits or subsidies they received during a tax year, which must be used in the calculation of the tax credit), and with respect to the amended limitation “determine a productivity loss based on the eligibility date and the entity data,” newly found prior art describes computing productivity scores and assigning reward scores based on those scores (Wartel, Pub. No.: US 2015/0269512 A1, paragraph 0088: “productivity algorithms for calculating productivity scores from productivity measures”), the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach “determine a productivity loss based on the eligibility date and the entity data; determine, based on the set of data fields, an amount for the rule-based condition according to the geographical information associated with the criterion, the productivity loss, and the set of data fields” as recited in amended claim 28 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 39 and 45).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A computer system comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory, to: provide, for display, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to a respective criterion used to determine an eligibility of a rule-based condition; receive an indication of a selection of an interface-element of the set of interface-elements; generate a set of data fields based on a mapping between geographical information and jurisdictional information obtained from one or more sources, the jurisdictional information associated with the criterion of the selected interface-element, wherein the set of data fields comprises an eligibility date of the rule-based condition and entity data; provide, for display, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground; determine a productivity loss based on the eligibility date and the entity data; determine, based on the set of data fields, an amount for the rule-based condition according to the geographical information associated with the criterion, the productivity loss, and the set of data fields; and provide, for display on the graphical user interface, the amount in a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows,” as recited in amended claim 28, “A method, the method comprising: providing, by one or more processors coupled with memory, for display, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface- element of the set of interface-elements is related to a respective criterion used to determine an eligibility of a rule-based condition; receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of a selection of an interface-element of the set of interface-elements; generating, by the one or more processors, a set of data fields based on a mapping between geographical information and jurisdictional information obtained from one or more sources, the jurisdictional information associated with the criterion of the selected interface-element, wherein the set of data fields comprises an eligibility date of the rule-based condition and entity data; providing, by the one or more processors, for display, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground; determining, by the one or more processors, a productivity loss based on the eligibility date and the entity data; determining, by the one or more processors, based on the set of data fields, an amount for the rule-based condition according to the geographical information associated with the criterion, the productivity loss, and the set of data fields; and providing, by the one or more processors, for display on the graphical user interface, the amount in a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows” as recited in amended claim 39, and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive geographical information and jurisdictional information from one or more sources; provide, for display, a set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, wherein each interface-element of the set of interface-elements is related to a respective criterion used to determine an eligibility of a rule-based condition; receive an indication of a selection of an interface-element of the set of interface-elements; generate a set of data fields based on a mapping between the geographical information and the jurisdictional information, the jurisdictional information associated with the criterion of the selected interface-element, wherein the set of data fields comprises an eligibility date of the rule-based condition and entity data; provide, for display, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface including the set of data fields, wherein interactions with the first window are disabled to prevent selection of interactive elements within the first window responsive to the set of modal windows being displayed in a foreground; determine a productivity loss based on the eligibility date and the entity data; determine, based on the set of data fields, an amount for the rule-based condition according to the geographical information associated with the criterion, the productivity loss, and the set of data fields; and provide, for display on the graphical user interface, the amount in a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display in the foreground over at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows that is disabled responsive to displaying the first modal window in the foreground, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows in which the selection of the one of the set of modal windows prevents interactions within the at least one other modal window of the set of modal windows,” as recited in amended claim 45, thus rendering claims 28-47 as allowable over prior art. However, 28-47 are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al., Patent No.: US 10,475,132 B1 – describes a methods and systems for identifying tax return preparation application questions based on semantic dependency.
Fulton et al., Pub. No.: US 2005/0125348 A1 – describes a user interface including a security mechanism for preventing unauthorized access from the user interface to the network.
Immervoll, Herwig, and Holly Sutherland. "EUROMOD: an integrated European tax-benefit model and indicators of work incentives." EUROPEAN ECONOMY SPECIAL REPORT-EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2 (2005): 50 – discusses the usefulness of tax-benefit microsimulation models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights