DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/809,117 filed on 08/19/2024. 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 January 06, 2026, Applicant amended claims 28-29, 39-40, 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.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed January 06, 2026, have been fully considered.
7. Applicant submits “While the Office Action purports that the claims "recite an abstract idea that falls into the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity' and also falls into the 'Mathematical Concepts" (Office Action, page 3), Applicant respectfully disagrees.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 10]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is note 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 ad 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 suer 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. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
8. Applicant submits “that the claims are not directed to any judicial exception. Without conceding this point, and with reference to the discussion above, Applicant submits that the claims are directed to a practical application of a judicial exception because they are directed to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Indeed, the claimed technical solution addresses a technical problem.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 13]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the claims are directed to a practical application of a judicial exception because they are directed to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Indeed, the claimed technical solution addresses a technical problem,” 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 and the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground, and a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 “Applicant's claims are directed to at least the following problem rooted in computer technology where it can be technically challenging for a system to automatically address the complexity of configuring an information system to automatically determine an amount (e.g., incentive) for an organization based on data from human capital management systems (e.g., geographical information and jurisdictional information) and presenting an amount for claiming the amount via at least one modal window controlled and arranged by selecting one of a set of modal windows,” it is noted that the alleged technical problem (i.e., automatically determining an amount and displaying it via modal windows) is essentially and abstract task of collecting, organizing, and presenting 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 reason above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “In addition, the claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem such as accurately determining amounts by integrating jurisdictional mandates, payroll data, and operational metrics such as productivity loss. For example, the claimed integration involves dynamic mapping and computation beyond any conventional calculators, which improves the functioning of a computer system by enabling context-based calculations that account for operational impact (e.g., including at least productivity loss). Indeed, the claimed subject matter involves an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(a) and the Guidance.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 14]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the claims use conventional GUI and computer functions to calculate and display information, but they do not improve how the computer operates itself, the invention is still directed to an abstract idea of organizing and analyzing info about employers and employees to determine eligibility for tax incentives, which involves applying rule based calculations to data. While the remarks mention that the claimed subject matter “optimizes memory usage by isolating active processes in a foreground window.” The claim does not actually show improvement in memory usage or computer performance. The specification does not describe a technical mechanism that reduces memory or processor load. Further, it is noted that automating calculation and displaying data on conventional GUI elements does not improve the computer itself, therefore the claim remains directed to an abstract idea. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “Indeed, analogous to McRO's use of an innovative computational tool for improvement leading to an eligible subject matter, claim 28 uses mappings between geographical and jurisdictional data to automatically determine eligibility and compute an amount (e.g., incentive), and provides control of modal windows (e.g., disabling, enabling, or overlapping of modal window(s)) displaying various information, thereby improving computational accuracy while accounting for the complexity of multi-department policies and optimizing memory usage via isolation of active window(s).” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 16]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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.” For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “Additionally, claim 28 also satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 101 pursuant to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the Federal Circuit found that claims directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices to recite patent eligible and satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 17]
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “claim 28 also satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 101 pursuant to Core Wireless,” 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. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant submits “In example 42, the additional elements of the claim were shown to integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Similarly, Applicant's claim 28 recites additional elements such as "one or more processors, coupled with memory, to: 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 the set of modal windows is 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 over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one of the set of modal windows." Applicant respectfully submits that the above recited language of claim 28 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 19]
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 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.
13. 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.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 19]
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. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
14. Applicant submits “In reference to the recent precedential decision in Ex Parte Desjardins (as incorporated into the MPEP) ("Desjardins"), Desjardins confirms that claims directed to improvements in computer technology, such as improved training of machine learning models, or in this case, improved computer-implemented GUIs for complex data mapping and calculation, are not abstract ideas. Hence, it should be noted that the Examiner must consider whether the claims, as a whole, reflect a technological improvement disclosed in the specification, and not evaluate the claims at an unduly high level of generality.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 20]
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, memory, set of interface-elements in a first window on a graphical user interface, a set of modal windows on the graphical user interface, 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.
15. 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, 01/06/2026, page 20]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is note 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.
16. Applicant submits “Without acquiescing or conceding as to the propriety of this rejection, Applicant hereby amends independent claims 28, 39, and 45 as discussed above to incorporate the allowable subject matter of claims 29 and 40. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 28, 39, and 45, and all dependent claims depending from the independent claims, are patentable and in condition for allowance, and requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC § 103.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/06/2026, page 21]
In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
17. 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
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 and the set of modal windows is 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 over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground, and a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground, and a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground, and a first modal window of the set of modal windows over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground, and a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided for display over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground, and a first modal window of the set of modal windows, wherein the first modal window is provided over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground, and a first modal window of the set of modal windows over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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.
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 the 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
21. 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 the set of modal windows is displayed in a foreground; 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 over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, 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 and the set of modal windows is 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 over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is 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 over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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 and the set of modal windows is 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 over at least a portion of one or more modal windows of the first set of modal windows, wherein an arrangement of the set of modal windows is controlled according to a selection of one 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.
Kersenbrock, Pub. No.: US 2006/0085252 A1 – describes an incentive program.
Weiss, Pub. No.: US 2005/0171877 A1 – describes a method of making capital investment decisions concerning locations for business operations and/or facilities.
Qi, Yawei, Wenxiang Peng, and Neal N. Xiong. "The effects of fiscal and tax incentives on regional innovation capability: Text extraction based on python." Mathematics 8.7 (2020): 1193 – describes a tax system that promotes fair competition, reduce the tax burden of enterprises, encourage enterprises to conduct independent R&D, and guide enterprises in the evolution from the low-tech to high-tech innovation by improving the tax structure and fiscal technology expenditures.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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