DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in the application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 24, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application and claims of the patent could have been presented together.
Claims 1-20 of the current application are directed toward a computer-implemented method; and, a system comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, the computer program instructions being executable to perform a method: for managing outstanding invoices in an accounting software application, the method comprising: (a) analyzing a web page to identify a unique invoice identifier; (b) obtaining, from the accounting software application, additional information about an invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; (c) causing a web browser to display the additional information about the invoice; (d) receiving, from a user, an instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; and (e) in response to receiving the instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier, causing the accounting software application to record a payment of the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier.
For example, U.S. Patent No. 12,100,057 mentions: A computer-implemented method for managing outstanding invoices in an accounting software application, the method comprising: (a) analyzing a current web page displayed by a web browser to identify a unique invoice identifier, comprising analyzing a URL of the current web page to identify the unique invoice identifier; (b) obtaining, from the accounting software application, additional information about an invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; (c) causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice; (d) receiving, from a user, an instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; and (e) in response to receiving the instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier, causing the accounting software application to record a payment of the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier.
As can be seen there are some differences between the claims; however, the differences are obvious and therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct from one another because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter that is the same as the patented claims.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1. An implemented method for managing outstanding invoices in an accounting application, the method comprising: (a) analyzing a page to identify a unique invoice identifier; (b) obtaining, from the accounting application, additional information about an invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; (c) causing to display- the additional information about the invoice; (d) receiving, from a user, an instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; and (e) in response to receiving the instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier, causing the accounting application to record a payment of the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier. (commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 2 -: 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the page comprises a page currently displayed. Claim 3 -: 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the page comprises an image- of a page previously displayed. Claim 4 -: 4. The method of claim 1, wherein (a) comprises analyzing a user interface- of the current page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Claim 5 -: 5. The method of claim 1, wherein (a) comprises analyzing content of the page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Claim 6 -: 6. The method of claim 1, wherein (a) comprises analyzing an image- of a rendering- of the page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Claim 7 -: 7. The method of claim 1, wherein (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are performed. Claim 8 -: 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering- of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering- of the page; and wherein (c) comprises causing to display- the additional information about the invoice in response to receiving the input from the user in connection with the rendering- of the unique invoice identifier. Claim 9 -: 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering- of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering- of the page; in response to receiving the input from the user in connection with the rendering- of the unique invoice identifier, displaying- a menu comprising a plurality of menu items; receiving, from the user, input selecting a payment triggering menu item within the plurality of menu items; and wherein (c) comprises causing to display- the additional information about the invoice in response to receiving the input selecting the payment triggering menu item from the user. Claim 10 -: 10. The method of claim 1, wherein (b) comprises making a request to the accounting application via an interface and receiving the additional information via the interface. (commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 11 -: 11. comprising at least one non-transitory readable medium- having instructions stored- thereon, the instructions being executable to perform a method for managing outstanding invoices in an accounting application, the method comprising: (a) analyzing a current page displayed to identify a unique invoice identifier; (b) obtaining, from... (c) causing to display-... (d) receiving, from... (e) in response... [id. at 1], (commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 12 -: 12. claim 11, wherein the page... [id. at 2], Claim 13 -: 13. claim 11, wherein the page... [id. at 3], Claim 14 -: 14. claim 11, wherein (a) comprises... [id. at 4], Claim 15 -: 15. claim 11, wherein (a) comprises... [id. at 5], Claim 16 -: 16. claim 11, wherein (a) comprises... [id. at 6], Claim 17 -: 17. claim 11, wherein (a), (b),... [id. at 7], Claim 18 -: 18. claim 11, wherein the method further comprises: before (c), receiving... wherein (c) comprises... [id. at 8], Claim 19 -: 19. claim 11, wherein the method further comprises: before (c), receiving... in response to receiving... receiving, from... wherein (c) comprises... [id. at 9], Claim 20 -: 20. claim 11, wherein (b) comprises... [id. at 10], (commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: computer-automated integration with web-based accounting systems for improved display and processing of invoices as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1 and 11 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 11.
Claim 1: Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-", "software application", "web page", "web browser", and "display ". However, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-", "software application", "web page", "web browser", and "display " of independent claim 1 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A computer-implemented method for managing … application, the method comprising", "(a) analyzing a web page … a unique invoice identifier", "(b) obtaining, from the accounting … the unique invoice identifier", "(c) causing a web browser … information about the invoice", "(d) receiving, from a user, … unique invoice identifier; and" and "(e) in response to receiving … the unique invoice identifier") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "(c) causing a web browser … information about the invoice" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "(c) causing a web browser … information about the invoice", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), and a web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016), restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 11: Specifically regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 11 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "computer-", "medium", "computer program", "stored", "software application", "web page", "web browser", and "display". However, independent claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "computer-", "medium", "computer program", "stored", "software application", "web page", "web browser", and "display" of independent claim 11 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A system comprising at least … application, the method comprising", "(a) analyzing a current web … a unique invoice identifier", "(b) obtaining, from the accounting … the unique invoice identifier", "(c) causing the web browser … information about the invoice", "(d) receiving, from a user, … unique invoice identifier; and" and "(e) in response to receiving … the unique invoice identifier") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "A system comprising at least … application, the method comprising", "(c) causing the web browser … information about the invoice" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "A system comprising at least … application, the method comprising", "(c) causing the web browser … information about the invoice", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and a web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 11 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1 and 11 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 17: Dependent claims 7 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "plugin installed" of dependent claims 7 and 17 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 13: Dependent claims 3 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "image" of dependent claims 3 and 13 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 14: Dependent claims 4 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "interface element" of dependent claims 4 and 14 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 16: Dependent claims 6 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "image", and "rendering" of dependent claims 6 and 16 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 18: Dependent claims 8 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "rendering" of dependent claims 8 and 18 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 19: Dependent claims 9 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "rendering", and "displaying" of dependent claims 9 and 19 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 20: Dependent claims 10 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "Application Program Interface (API)", and "API" of dependent claims 10 and 20 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 12: Dependent claims 2 and 12 add an additional method step of "wherein the web page comprises a web page currently displayed by the web browser". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 2 and 12 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 2 and 12 are ineligible.
Claims 3 and 13: Dependent claims 3 and 13 add an additional method step of "wherein the web page comprises an image of a web page previously displayed by the web browser". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 3 and 13 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition), and a web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 3 and 13 are ineligible.
Claims 4 and 14: Dependent claims 4 and 14 add an additional method step of "wherein (a) comprises analyzing a user interface element of the current web page to identify the unique invoice identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 4 and 14 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 12 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 12 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 4 and 14 are ineligible.
Claims 5 and 15: Dependent claims 5 and 15 add an additional method step of "wherein (a) comprises analyzing content of the web page to identify the unique invoice identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 5 and 15 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 12 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 12 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 5 and 15 are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 16: Dependent claims 6 and 16 add an additional method step of "wherein (a) comprises analyzing an image of a rendering of the web page to identify the unique invoice identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 6 and 16 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 3 and 13 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) See discussion above regarding Claim 3 and 13 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 6 and 16 are ineligible.
Claims 7 and 17: Dependent claims 7 and 17 add additional method steps of "wherein (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are performed by a plugin installed in the web browser". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 7 and 17 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 12 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 12 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 7 and 17 are ineligible.
Claims 8 and 18: Dependent claims 8 and 18 add an additional method step of "before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering of the web page; and", "wherein (c) comprises causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice … input from the user in connection with the rendering of the unique invoice identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 8 and 18 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claims 3 and 13, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 8 and 18 are ineligible.
Claims 9 and 19: Dependent claims 9 and 19 add an additional method step of "before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering of the web page", "in response to receiving the input from the user in connection with the rendering of the unique invoice identifier, displaying a menu comprising a plurality of menu items", "receiving, from the user, input selecting a payment triggering menu item within the plurality of menu items; and", "wherein (c) comprises causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice … response to receiving the input selecting the payment triggering menu item from the user". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 9 and 19 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 8 and 18 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 8 and 18 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 9 and 19 are ineligible.
Claims 10 and 20: Dependent claims 10 and 20 add additional method steps of "wherein (b) comprises making a request to the accounting software application via an Application Program Interface (API) and receiving the additional information via the API". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 10 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 12 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 12 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 10 and 20 are ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Prior Art: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0158116 A1 of Hoang; Brittney et al., (hereinafter "HOANG").
Claim 1, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 1 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 1 is an independent claim. HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 1 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 1, a computer-implemented method for managing outstanding invoices in an accounting software application, the method comprising: Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[c]ontinuing with FIG. 1, the commerce platform (140) includes an invoice accounting system (150), a customer system (160), an identity system (170), and a payment system (180)[; t]he various systems of the commerce platform (140) may be supported by separate virtual or physical servers[; f]or example, the accounting system may operate on one or more virtual machine while the payment system operates on one or more different virtual machines that are on the same or different server(s)[; t]he various systems may have different storage structures, and software tools with varying programming languages and APIs that are specific to the functions of the corresponding system[; t]hus, records in one system may not have a direct match to the records in another system" par. {0026] and "[t]he invoice accounting system (150) is a system that includes functionality to perform the accounting functions for the vendor[; i]n particular, the accounting system (150) may accept payment initiations from customers, manage and track invoices, perform payroll functions, manage and pay bills, and generate accounting reports and perform other such actions[; t]he invoice accounting system includes an accounting data repository (156), a vendor interface (151), and an invoice manager (153)" par. [0027])
• 1 ¶ 2 • (a) analyzing a web page to identify a unique invoice identifier; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he accounting data repository (155) is any type of storage unit and/or device (e.g., a file system, database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data[; f]urther, the accounting data repository (155) may include multiple different storage units and/or devices[; t]he multiple different storage units and/or devices may or may not be of the same type or located at the same physical site[; t]he accounting data repository (155) includes functionality to store invoices (156)[; a]n invoice (156) is an itemized statement specifying the terms of the financial transaction[; i]n one or more embodiments, the financial transaction may be in progress[; i]n particular, the invoice may itemize the products being sold, identify the customer and the vendor, and include payment terms[; s]pecifically, the invoice specifies the payment details of an exchange of at least one product between the vendor and customer[; t]he payment terms in the invoice may include the time period to pay the bill, the amount to pay, forms of acceptable payment, late fees, etc[; f]or example, consider the scenario in which a vendor is a distributor that wholesales jeans to a retailer for $40/pair[; i]n the example, the distributor may deliver the jeans to the retailer waits for payment by the customer[; i]n the invoice, the distributor lists the number of jeans, any taxes and fees, and the payment terms[; t]he distributor provides the invoice to the retailer, who may perform the payment according to the payment terms" par. [0028])
• 1 ¶ 3 • (b) obtaining, from the accounting software application, additional information about an invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he accounting data repository (155) is any type of storage unit and/or device (e.g., a file system, database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data[; f]urther, the accounting data repository (155) may include multiple different storage units and/or devices[; t]he multiple different storage units and/or devices may or may not be of the same type or located at the same physical site[; t]he accounting data repository (155) includes functionality to store invoices (156)[; a]n invoice (156) is an itemized statement specifying the terms of the financial transaction[; i]n one or more embodiments, the financial transaction may be in progress[; i]n particular, the invoice may itemize the products being sold, identify the customer and the vendor, and include payment terms[; s]pecifically, the invoice specifies the payment details of an exchange of at least one product between the vendor and customer[; t]he payment terms in the invoice may include the time period to pay the bill, the amount to pay, forms of acceptable payment, late fees, etc[; f]or example, consider the scenario in which a vendor is a distributor that wholesales jeans to a retailer for $40/pair[; i]n the example, the distributor may deliver the jeans to the retailer waits for payment by the customer[; i]n the invoice, the distributor lists the number of jeans, any taxes and fees, and the payment terms[; t]he distributor provides the invoice to the retailer, who may perform the payment according to the payment terms" par. [0028])
• 1 ¶ 4 • (c) causing a web browser to display the additional information about the invoice; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n Step 203, a visualization is generated for the invoice showing the status[; f]or example, a web page may be populated with an identifier of the invoice and the corresponding status of the invoice[; t]he visualization may be presented, such as by being transmitted and/or displayed on a display device of the user's computer system[; i]n some embodiments, at least one invoice has a payment status[; t]he payment status is in the payment made status category or in the post payment status category" par. [0050])
• 1 ¶ 5 • (d) receiving, from a user, an instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; and Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[a]t time (715), customer (704) may initiate a second interaction by providing a payment of the invoice to commerce platform (140)[; c]ommerce platform (740) may receive the request, retrieve payment credentials from the user customer information, and route the payment request to customer bank (705) at time (717)[; a]t time (719), customer bank (705) may use the request to initiate a direct fund transfer to vendor bank (702), over an independent channel[; f]urther, the commerce platform (740) may change the invoice status to paid at time (721)[; t]he commerce platform (740) may change the invoice status before, during, or after the actual monetary transaction for the payment is performed[; a]lternatively, commerce platform (740) may request to vendor bank (702) to transfer funds directly from customer bank (705)" par. [0077] and "[t]he nodes (e.g., node X (822), node Y (824)) in the network (820) may be configured to provide services for a client device (826)[; f]or example, the nodes may be part of a cloud computing system[; t]he nodes may include functionality to receive requests from the client device (826) and transmit responses to the client device (826)[; t]he client device (826) may be a computing system, such as the computing system shown in FIG. 8.1[; f]urther, the client device (826) may include and/or perform all or a portion of one or more embodiments of the invention" par. [0088])
• 1 ¶ 6 • (e) in response to receiving the instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier, causing the accounting software application to record a payment of the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[f]IG. 3 shows a flowchart for sending an invoice to a customer[; i]n Step 303, a business request is received from a customer for a financial transaction[; a] business request for a financial transaction is a customer offer to purchase one or more products from a vendor[; b]y way of an example, the business request may be a sale, a rent, a rent to own or a lease agreement for a product[; t]he business request may be received from a customer visiting a vendor website and committing to purchase a product[; b]y way of another example, the customer may contact the vendor to perform a service" par [0056] and "[i]n Step 407, the transaction update is recorded in the transaction records[; t]he payment manager stores any transaction update as a new monetary transaction record in payment data repository[; a] unique identifier for each monetary transaction record may be generated based on the transaction update[; f]or example, the unique identifier may be a combination of one or more of the following: time, date, vendor identifier, customer identifier, product, invoice ID, and amount of transaction[; t]he transaction update from the financial institution may be different than the transaction update of the vendor in that the vendor may directly enter the vendor's transaction update to the payment data repository, whereas the financial institution creates the financial institution's transaction records that are downloaded to the payment data repository" par. [0064])
Claim 2, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 2 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 2 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 2 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 2, the method of claim 1,
• 2 ¶ 2 • wherein the web page comprises a web page currently displayed by the web browser. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n Step 203, a visualization is generated for the invoice showing the status[; f]or example, a web page may be populated with an identifier of the invoice and the corresponding status of the invoice[; t]he visualization may be presented, such as by being transmitted and/or displayed on a display device of the user's computer system[; i]n some embodiments, at least one invoice has a payment status[; t]he payment status is in the payment made status category or in the post payment status category" par. [0050])
Claim 3, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 3 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 3 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 3 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 3, the method of claim 1,
• 3 ¶ 2 • wherein the web page comprises an image of a web page previously displayed by the web browser. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n Step 203, a visualization is generated for the invoice showing the status[; f]or example, a web page may be populated with an identifier of the invoice and the corresponding status of the invoice[; t]he visualization may be presented, such as by being transmitted and/or displayed on a display device of the user's computer system[; i]n some embodiments, at least one invoice has a payment status[; t]he payment status is in the payment made status category or in the post payment status category" par. [0050])
Claim 4, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 4 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 4 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 4 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 4, the method of claim 1,
• 4 ¶ 2 • wherein (a) comprises analyzing a user interface element of the current web page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]urning to FIG. 2, FIG. 2 shows a general flowchart for displaying an end to end view in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention[; i]n Step 201, a status of an invoice is obtained from an accounting data repository[; t]he accounting data repository is queried for the status using an invoice identifier[; b]ased on the invoice identifier, a search is performed to identify the stored record of the invoice and extract the status from the stored record[; f]or example, a user may request display of invoices[; i]n response, the system may respond with the statuses for each of the invoices" par. [0049])
Claim 5, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 5 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 5 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 5 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 5, the method of claim 1,
• 5 ¶ 2 • wherein (a) comprises analyzing content of the web page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[a] financial transaction is stored by the financial application as a financial transaction record[; t]he financial transaction record includes a unique identifier of the financial transaction, one or more identifiers of the product or products being exchanged, information about any contractual provisions, agreed price for the product or products, parties to the financial transaction, discounts applied, other information describing the financial transaction, or any combination thereof" par. [0020])
Claim 6, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 6 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 6 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 6 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 6, the method of claim 1,
• 6 ¶ 2 • wherein (a) comprises analyzing an image of a rendering of the web page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n Step 203, a visualization is generated for the invoice showing the status[; f]or example, a web page may be populated with an identifier of the invoice and the corresponding status of the invoice[; t]he visualization may be presented, such as by being transmitted and/or displayed on a display device of the user's computer system[; i]n some embodiments, at least one invoice has a payment status[; t]he payment status is in the payment made status category or in the post payment status category" par. [0050])
Claim 7, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 7 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 7 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 7 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 7, the method of claim 1,
• 7 ¶ 2 • wherein (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are performed by a plugin installed in the web browser. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he various computing devices (e.g., vendor computing device (e.g., vendor M computing device (102), vendor N computing device (104)), customer computing device (e.g., customer A computing device (106), customer B computing device (108)), financial institution computing device (e.g., financial institution X computing device (121), financial institution Y computing device (122)) may include functionality to connect to the commerce platform (140) via the computing network (110)[; s]pecifically, the computing device may execute the financial application or may be remotely connected to a financial application on the commerce platform (140), which may be a web application in such embodiments[; a] financial application is an application that is configured to manage financial transactions[; a] financial transaction is an exchange of a product for money[; t]he financial transaction may span a period of time, may involve multiple payments, and/or may involve multiple distributions of the product[; f]urther, the financial transaction may involve more than one product[; a] financial transaction involves at least one product transaction and at least one monetary transaction[; a] product transaction is a movement of a product from one party to another party as specified by the financial transaction[; f]or example, the product transaction is the performance of the service or the delivery of goods[; a] monetary transaction is a movement of money from one party to another party for the financial transaction[; f]or example, the monetary transaction is the changing account balances in banks according to the ACH or credit network" par. [0019])
Claim 8, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 8 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 8 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 8 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 8, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
• 8 ¶ 2 • before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering of the web page; and Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he customer interface (161) is a user interface and/or API that interfaces with the customer computing device[; f]or example, the customer interface (161) may be a graphical user interface of a web application, an interface of the financial application located on the customer computing device, or another interface[; t]he customer interface (161) includes functionality to present invoices and offer payment options to the customer in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention[; i]n other words, the customer interacts with the invoices through the customer interface of the customer system" par. [0035])
• 8 ¶ 3 • wherein (c) comprises causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice in response to receiving the input from the user in connection with the rendering of the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he customer interface (161) is a user interface and/or API that interfaces with the customer computing device[; f]or example, the customer interface (161) may be a graphical user interface of a web application, an interface of the financial application located on the customer computing device, or another interface[; t]he customer interface (161) includes functionality to present invoices and offer payment options to the customer in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention[; i]n other words, the customer interacts with the invoices through the customer interface of the customer system" par. [0035])
Claim 9, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 9 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 9 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 9 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 9, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
• 9 ¶ 2 • before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering of the web page; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n Step 407, the transaction update is recorded in the transaction records[; t]he payment manager stores any transaction update as a new monetary transaction record in payment data repository[; a] unique identifier for each monetary transaction record may be generated based on the transaction update[; f]or example, the unique identifier may be a combination of one or more of the following: time, date, vendor identifier, customer identifier, product, invoice ID, and amount of transaction[; t]he transaction update from the financial institution may be different than the transaction update of the vendor in that the vendor may directly enter the vendor's transaction update to the payment data repository, whereas the financial institution creates the financial institution's transaction records that are downloaded to the payment data repository" par. [0064])
• 9 ¶ 3 • in response to receiving the input from the user in connection with the rendering of the unique invoice identifier, displaying a menu comprising a plurality of menu items; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[r]eturning to invoice status, the invoice status may include transaction history, account balance, whether the customer received the invoice, pending monetary transactions, whether the balance is paid in full or in part, and other information[; i]n general, the invoice status is selected from any of a prepayment status category, a payment made status category, and a post-payment status category[; s]tatuses in the prepayment status category includes one or more of sent to customer, customer viewed, overdue (viewed), overdue (not sent), overdue (sent), open (viewed), open (not sent), open (sent)[; s]tatuses in the payment made status category include paid[; s]tatuses in the post payment status category include funds on hold, chargeback, ACH dispute, deposit fail, payment declined, refund failed paid in-transit, paid deposited, paid undeposited, partially paid, in-transit, void, refund pending, refund complete, partial refund pending, partial refund complete[; t]he above list may be the collection of invoice statuses that may be displayed[; f]urther, the status category may be displayed instead of or in addition to the status[; s]ome of the above invoice statuses may be combined[; f]or example, the invoice status may be selected from Funds on hold, Disputed (Chargeback & ACH dispute), Deposit failed, Payment failed, Overdue (sent), Overdue (not sent), Overdue (viewed), Paid (Undeposited), Deposited, and Void[; t]he invoice status may be generated by accessing the various systems of the commerce network" par. [0031])
• 9 ¶ 4 • receiving, from the user, input selecting a payment triggering menu item within the plurality of menu items; and Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he customer interface (161) is a user interface and/or API that interfaces with the customer computing device[; f]or example, the customer interface (161) may be a graphical user interface of a web application, an interface of the financial application located on the customer computing device, or another interface[; t]he customer interface (161) includes functionality to present invoices and offer payment options to the customer in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention[; i]n other words, the customer interacts with the invoices through the customer interface of the customer system" par. [0035])
• 9 ¶ 5 • wherein (c) comprises causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice in response to receiving the input selecting the payment triggering menu item from the user. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[r]eturning to invoice status, the invoice status may include transaction history, account balance, whether the customer received the invoice, pending monetary transactions, whether the balance is paid in full or in part, and other information[; i]n general, the invoice status is selected from any of a prepayment status category, a payment made status category, and a post-payment status category[; s]tatuses in the prepayment status category includes one or more of sent to customer, customer viewed, overdue (viewed), overdue (not sent), overdue (sent), open (viewed), open (not sent), open (sent)[; s]tatuses in the payment made status category include paid[; s]tatuses in the post payment status category include funds on hold, chargeback, ACH dispute, deposit fail, payment declined, refund failed paid in-transit, paid deposited, paid undeposited, partially paid, in-transit, void, refund pending, refund complete, partial refund pending, partial refund complete[; t]he above list may be the collection of invoice statuses that may be displayed[; f]urther, the status category may be displayed instead of or in addition to the status[; s]ome of the above invoice statuses may be combined[; f]or example, the invoice status may be selected from Funds on hold, Disputed (Chargeback & ACH dispute), Deposit failed, Payment failed, Overdue (sent), Overdue (not sent), Overdue (viewed), Paid (Undeposited), Deposited, and Void[; t]he invoice status may be generated by accessing the various systems of the commerce network" par. [0031])
Claim 10, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 10 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 10 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 10 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 10, the method of claim 1,
• 10 ¶ 2 • wherein (b) comprises making a request to the accounting software application via an Application Program Interface (API) and receiving the additional information via the API. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n one or more embodiments of the invention, the various computing devices are configured each to perform various tasks at the request of a remote computing device through an application programming interface[; t]he application programming interface (API) is a set of programming instructions, protocols and standards for interacting with a software application[; f]or example, a financial institution releases its API to a software company so that the software developers of the software company can design products that are capable of accessing the financial institution services" par. [0021])
Claim 11, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 11 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 11 is an independent claim. HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 11 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 11, a system comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, the computer program instructions being executable to perform a method for managing outstanding invoices in an accounting software application, the method comprising: Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[c]ontinuing with FIG. 1, the commerce platform (140) includes an invoice accounting system (150), a customer system (160), an identity system (170), and a payment system (180)[; t]he various systems of the commerce platform (140) may be supported by separate virtual or physical servers[; f]or example, the accounting system may operate on one or more virtual machine while the payment system operates on one or more different virtual machines that are on the same or different server(s)[; t]he various systems may have different storage structures, and software tools with varying programming languages and APIs that are specific to the functions of the corresponding system[; t]hus, records in one system may not have a direct match to the records in another system" par. {0026] and "[t]he invoice accounting system (150) is a system that includes functionality to perform the accounting functions for the vendor[; i]n particular, the accounting system (150) may accept payment initiations from customers, manage and track invoices, perform payroll functions, manage and pay bills, and generate accounting reports and perform other such actions[; t]he invoice accounting system includes an accounting data repository (156), a vendor interface (151), and an invoice manager (153)" par. [0027])
• 11 ¶ 2 • (a) analyzing a current web page displayed by a web browser to identify a unique invoice identifier; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he accounting data repository (155) is any type of storage unit and/or device (e.g., a file system, database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data[; f]urther, the accounting data repository (155) may include multiple different storage units and/or devices[; t]he multiple different storage units and/or devices may or may not be of the same type or located at the same physical site[; t]he accounting data repository (155) includes functionality to store invoices (156)[; a]n invoice (156) is an itemized statement specifying the terms of the financial transaction[; i]n one or more embodiments, the financial transaction may be in progress[; i]n particular, the invoice may itemize the products being sold, identify the customer and the vendor, and include payment terms[; s]pecifically, the invoice specifies the payment details of an exchange of at least one product between the vendor and customer[; t]he payment terms in the invoice may include the time period to pay the bill, the amount to pay, forms of acceptable payment, late fees, etc[; f]or example, consider the scenario in which a vendor is a distributor that wholesales jeans to a retailer for $40/pair[; i]n the example, the distributor may deliver the jeans to the retailer waits for payment by the customer[; i]n the invoice, the distributor lists the number of jeans, any taxes and fees, and the payment terms[; t]he distributor provides the invoice to the retailer, who may perform the payment according to the payment terms" par. [0028])
• 11 ¶ 3 • (b) obtaining, from the accounting software application, additional information about an invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he accounting data repository (155) is any type of storage unit and/or device (e.g., a file system, database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data[; f]urther, the accounting data repository (155) may include multiple different storage units and/or devices[; t]he multiple different storage units and/or devices may or may not be of the same type or located at the same physical site[; t]he accounting data repository (155) includes functionality to store invoices (156)[; a]n invoice (156) is an itemized statement specifying the terms of the financial transaction[; i]n one or more embodiments, the financial transaction may be in progress[; i]n particular, the invoice may itemize the products being sold, identify the customer and the vendor, and include payment terms[; s]pecifically, the invoice specifies the payment details of an exchange of at least one product between the vendor and customer[; t]he payment terms in the invoice may include the time period to pay the bill, the amount to pay, forms of acceptable payment, late fees, etc[; f]or example, consider the scenario in which a vendor is a distributor that wholesales jeans to a retailer for $40/pair[; i]n the example, the distributor may deliver the jeans to the retailer waits for payment by the customer[; i]n the invoice, the distributor lists the number of jeans, any taxes and fees, and the payment terms[; t]he distributor provides the invoice to the retailer, who may perform the payment according to the payment terms" par. [0028])
• 11 ¶ 4 • (c) causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n Step 203, a visualization is generated for the invoice showing the status[; f]or example, a web page may be populated with an identifier of the invoice and the corresponding status of the invoice[; t]he visualization may be presented, such as by being transmitted and/or displayed on a display device of the user's computer system[; i]n some embodiments, at least one invoice has a payment status[; t]he payment status is in the payment made status category or in the post payment status category" par. [0050])
• 11 ¶ 5 • (d) receiving, from a user, an instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier; and Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[a]t time (715), customer (704) may initiate a second interaction by providing a payment of the invoice to commerce platform (140)[; c]ommerce platform (740) may receive the request, retrieve payment credentials from the user customer information, and route the payment request to customer bank (705) at time (717)[; a]t time (719), customer bank (705) may use the request to initiate a direct fund transfer to vendor bank (702), over an independent channel[; f]urther, the commerce platform (740) may change the invoice status to paid at time (721)[; t]he commerce platform (740) may change the invoice status before, during, or after the actual monetary transaction for the payment is performed[; a]lternatively, commerce platform (740) may request to vendor bank (702) to transfer funds directly from customer bank (705)" par. [0077] and "[t]he nodes (e.g., node X (822), node Y (824)) in the network (820) may be configured to provide services for a client device (826)[; f]or example, the nodes may be part of a cloud computing system[; t]he nodes may include functionality to receive requests from the client device (826) and transmit responses to the client device (826)[; t]he client device (826) may be a computing system, such as the computing system shown in FIG. 8.1[; f]urther, the client device (826) may include and/or perform all or a portion of one or more embodiments of the invention" par. [0088])
• 11 ¶ 6 • (e) in response to receiving the instruction to pay the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier, causing the accounting software application to record a payment of the invoice identified by the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[f]IG. 3 shows a flowchart for sending an invoice to a customer[; i]n Step 303, a business request is received from a customer for a financial transaction[; a] business request for a financial transaction is a customer offer to purchase one or more products from a vendor[; b]y way of an example, the business request may be a sale, a rent, a rent to own or a lease agreement for a product[; t]he business request may be received from a customer visiting a vendor website and committing to purchase a product[; b]y way of another example, the customer may contact the vendor to perform a service" par [0056] and "[i]n Step 407, the transaction update is recorded in the transaction records[; t]he payment manager stores any transaction update as a new monetary transaction record in payment data repository[; a] unique identifier for each monetary transaction record may be generated based on the transaction update[; f]or example, the unique identifier may be a combination of one or more of the following: time, date, vendor identifier, customer identifier, product, invoice ID, and amount of transaction[; t]he transaction update from the financial institution may be different than the transaction update of the vendor in that the vendor may directly enter the vendor's transaction update to the payment data repository, whereas the financial institution creates the financial institution's transaction records that are downloaded to the payment data repository" par. [0064])
Claim 12, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 12 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 12 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 12 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 12, the system of claim 11,
• 12 ¶ 2 • wherein the web page comprises a web page currently displayed by the web browser. Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 2 Par. 2)
Claim 13, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 13 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 13 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 13 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 13, the system of claim 11,
• 13 ¶ 2 • wherein the web page comprises an image of a web page previously displayed by the web browser. Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 3 Par. 2)
Claim 14, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 14 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 14 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 14 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 14, the system of claim 11,
• 14 ¶ 2 • wherein (a) comprises analyzing a user interface element of the current web page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 4 Par. 2)
Claim 15, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 15 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 15 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 15 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 15, the system of claim 11,
• 15 ¶ 2 • wherein (a) comprises analyzing content of the web page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 5 Par. 2)
Claim 16, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 16 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 16 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 16 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 16, the system of claim 11,
• 16 ¶ 2 • wherein (a) comprises analyzing an image of a rendering of the web page to identify the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 2)
Claim 17, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 17 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 17 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 17 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 17, the system of claim 11,
• 17 ¶ 2 • wherein (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are performed by a plugin installed in the web browser. Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 7 Par. 2)
Claim 18, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 18 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 18 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 18 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 18, the system of claim 11, wherein the method further comprises:
• 18 ¶ 2 • before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering of the web page; and Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 8 Par. 2)
• 18 ¶ 3 • wherein (c) comprises causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice in response to receiving the input from the user in connection with the rendering of the unique invoice identifier. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[t]he customer interface (161) is a user interface and/or API that interfaces with the customer computing device[; f]or example, the customer interface (161) may be a graphical user interface of a web application, an interface of the financial application located on the customer computing device, or another interface[; t]he customer interface (161) includes functionality to present invoices and offer payment options to the customer in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention[; i]n other words, the customer interacts with the invoices through the customer interface of the customer system" par. [0035])
Claim 19, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 19 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 19 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 19 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 19, the system of claim 11, wherein the method further comprises:
• 19 ¶ 2 • before (c), receiving input from the user in connection with a rendering of the unique invoice identifier within a rendering of the web page; Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[i]n Step 407, the transaction update is recorded in the transaction records[; t]he payment manager stores any transaction update as a new monetary transaction record in payment data repository[; a] unique identifier for each monetary transaction record may be generated based on the transaction update[; f]or example, the unique identifier may be a combination of one or more of the following: time, date, vendor identifier, customer identifier, product, invoice ID, and amount of transaction[; t]he transaction update from the financial institution may be different than the transaction update of the vendor in that the vendor may directly enter the vendor's transaction update to the payment data repository, whereas the financial institution creates the financial institution's transaction records that are downloaded to the payment data repository" par. [0064])
• 19 ¶ 3 • in response to receiving the input from the user in connection with the rendering of the unique invoice identifier, displaying a menu comprising a plurality of menu items; Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 9 Par. 3)
• 19 ¶ 4 • receiving, from the user, input selecting a payment triggering menu item within the plurality of menu items; and Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 9 Par. 4)
• 19 ¶ 5 • wherein (c) comprises causing the web browser to display the additional information about the invoice in response to receiving the input selecting the payment triggering menu item from the user. Line Comment: (HOANG: discloses e.g. "[r]eturning to invoice status, the invoice status may include transaction history, account balance, whether the customer received the invoice, pending monetary transactions, whether the balance is paid in full or in part, and other information[; i]n general, the invoice status is selected from any of a prepayment status category, a payment made status category, and a post-payment status category[; s]tatuses in the prepayment status category includes one or more of sent to customer, customer viewed, overdue (viewed), overdue (not sent), overdue (sent), open (viewed), open (not sent), open (sent)[; s]tatuses in the payment made status category include paid[; s]tatuses in the post payment status category include funds on hold, chargeback, ACH dispute, deposit fail, payment declined, refund failed paid in-transit, paid deposited, paid undeposited, partially paid, in-transit, void, refund pending, refund complete, partial refund pending, partial refund complete[; t]he above list may be the collection of invoice statuses that may be displayed[; f]urther, the status category may be displayed instead of or in addition to the status[; s]ome of the above invoice statuses may be combined[; f]or example, the invoice status may be selected from Funds on hold, Disputed (Chargeback & ACH dispute), Deposit failed, Payment failed, Overdue (sent), Overdue (not sent), Overdue (viewed), Paid (Undeposited), Deposited, and Void[; t]he invoice status may be generated by accessing the various systems of the commerce network" par. [0031])
Claim 20, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 20 is rejected as being anticipated by HOANG. Claim 20 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 11, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 11, HOANG discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 20 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 20, the system of claim 11,
• 20 ¶ 2 • wherein (b) comprises making a request to the accounting software application via an Application Program Interface (API) and receiving the additional information via the API. Line Comment: (HOANG: See Prior Comment at Claim 10 Par. 2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20200387887 A1 by Rathod; Yogesh discloses Selected place on maps associated uniform resource locator (URL) or selected place associated merchant account based payment transactions, connections, offers, order, deals, reservation and call-to-actions.
USPAT No. US 10282718 B1 to Lincoln; Matthew et al. discloses Selective invoice option for business customers in an E-commerce application.
USPGPub No. US 20150012399 A1 by Ceribelli; Henrique Pedreira de Freitas et al. discloses System and Method for Enhanced Access and Control for Modification of Auto-Learned Conflict Resolution and Related Rule and Value Replacements.
USPGPub No. US 20130246104 A1 by Weinstock; Timothy Robert et al. discloses Extended Web Enabled Multi-Featured Business To Business Computer System For Rental Vehicle Services.
USPGPub No. US 20110119119 A1 by Sosikian; Raffi discloses ADVERTISER INVOICING SYSTEM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 06/06/2026
Prosecution Insights