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 .
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 1-2, 5-7, 12-13, 16-18, 23-24, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2 and 5-7 recite a method (process), Claims 12-13 and 16-18 recite a system (machine), and Claims 23-24 and Claims 27-29 recite one or more non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture) and therefore fall into a statutory category. The examiner is interpreting the system and computer readable medium perform the steps of the method for examination purposes.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-2, 5-7, 12-13, 16-18, 23-24, and 27-29 the claims recite concepts for a manner of organizing acquiring services for a user, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts covered under the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the claims recite concepts for computing a competitiveness score based on the analysis of collected information, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts covered under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 1) A method for managing data records representing quotes, the method comprising:
(Claim 12) [A system for managing data records representing quotes, the system comprising: a server; a client device configured to] transmit an electronic request [to the server via a primary platform]; and [a plurality of secondary platforms configured to] transmit secondary platform parameters [to the server; wherein the server is configured to]:
(Claim 23) [A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for managing data records representing quotes, the instructions for:]
receiving an electronic request [at a server from a client device via a primary platform];
retrieving secondary platform parameters stored [in -non-volatile memory at the server], each secondary platform parameter associated with one of a plurality of secondary platforms;
retrieving a rating for each secondary platform parameter, the ratings stored [in the non-volatile memory at the server], the ratings representing a quality of a match between a primary workflow respective to the primary platform and a secondary workflow that complements the primary workflow [and which is hosted by each of the secondary platforms];
retrieving feedback data for each of the plurality of secondary platforms, the feedback data stored [in the non-volatile memory at the server] and including an aggregated value for each of the plurality of secondary platforms, the aggregated value being calculated based on a combination of: (i) a number of communications transmitted between the respective secondary platform and the client device, and (ii) an actual time taken by the respective secondary platform to complete the respective secondary workflow;
generating a data record for each of the plurality of secondary platforms;
computing a competitiveness score for each of the plurality of secondary platforms based on the respective secondary platform parameters, the respective ratings, the respective data records and the respective feedback data;
selecting a subset of the secondary platforms based on the competitiveness scores, wherein selecting the subset further comprises comparing the aggregated values across the plurality of secondary platforms and selecting secondary platforms having lower aggregated values relative to non-selected secondary platforms;
[controlling the client device to] generate the subset of the secondary platforms, display the subset of the secondary platforms at a user interface on a display of the client device, and request a selection [at the client device];
receiving a selection response [from the client device], the selection response corresponding to a selected one of the subset of secondary platforms;
and updating the feedback data [in the non-volatile memory at the server] based on the selection response for use in computing a competitiveness score for a subsequent electronic request, wherein receiving the electronic request further comprises: receiving primary request parameters;
[controlling the client device based on the primary request parameters];
receiving secondary request parameters; [controlling the client device to] output prompts [on the display of the client device] based on the secondary request parameters;
and iteratively acquiring secondary request parameters by eliciting subsequent prompts [at the client device until the server determines that the secondary request parameters are complete, wherein the prompts are curated to conserve computing resources].
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims recite concepts performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting a manner of organizing acquiring services for a user (See paragraphs 50, 56-60, and 72-79). Further the claims recite concepts capable of being performed in Mental Processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) but for the recitation of generic computing components. In the present application concepts reciting concepts for computing a competitiveness score based on the analysis of collected information. (See paragraphs 102, 105, and 108-109).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) it falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See Id.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The Examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A system. (See paragraph 52)
A server. (See paragraph 53)
A client device. (See paragraph 55)
A primary platform. (See paragraph 56)
A secondary platform. (See paragraph 57)
A non-transitory computer readable medium. (See paragraph 51)
Instruction. (See paragraphs 51, 66, and 68)
Non-volatile memory (See paragraph 53)
A display. (See paragraph 57)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Referring to “and which is hosted by each of the secondary platforms”, “controlling the client device to”, and “controlling the client device based on the primary request parameters at the client device until the server determines that the secondary request parameters are complete, wherein the prompts are curated to conserve computing resources” the Examiner views as a results-oriented solution lacking details and therefore equivalent to merely apply it. (See Id.) and paragraphs 50, 86-87, 96, and 108-109 of the Specification).
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 7 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 2 and 7 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the results-oriented solution steps of “controlling the client device, the primary platform, and the selected secondary platform to” (See paragraph 114) and “controlling the client device, the primary platform, and the selected secondary platform to” (See paragraph 115) and are therefore viewed as equivalent as mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic client device (See paragraph 55) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 13 and 18 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic server (See paragraph 53) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 13 and 18 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 16 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic server (See paragraph 53) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Further the claim recites the results-oriented solution steps of “controlling the client device, the primary platform, and the selected secondary platform to” (See paragraph 114) and “controlling the client device, the primary platform, and the selected secondary platform to” (See paragraph 115) and are therefore viewed as equivalent as mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 16 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic server (See paragraph 53) and client device (See paragraph 55) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 17 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 24 and 29 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic instructions (See paragraphs 51, 66, and 68) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 24 and 29 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 27 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic instructions (See paragraphs 51, 66, and 68) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Further the claim recites the results-oriented solution steps of “controlling the client device, the primary platform, and the selected secondary platform to” (See paragraph 114) and “controlling the client device, the primary platform, and the selected secondary platform to” (See paragraph 115) and are therefore viewed as equivalent as mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 27 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 28 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic instructions (See paragraphs 51, 66, and 68) and client device (See paragraph 55) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 28 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on page 11 of the Remarks, regarding the 112 rejection the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner, has withdrawn the 112 rejection.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 11-14 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 1 the limitations of “retrieving feedback data for each of the plurality of secondary platforms, the feedback data including an aggregated value for each of the plurality of secondary platforms, the aggregated value being calculated based on a combination of: (i) a number of communications transmitted between the respective secondary platform and the client device, and (ii) an actual time taken by the respective secondary platform to complete the respective secondary workflow”, “computing a competitiveness score and selecting a subset of platforms by comparing the aggregated values across the plurality of secondary platforms and selecting secondary platforms having lower aggregated values relative to non-selected secondary platforms” and “updating the feedback data in the non- volatile memory at the server for use in computing a competitiveness score for a subsequent electronic request”. According to Applicant, these elements provide for a specific, server-implemented computational process in which-platform-specific data stored in non-volatile memory is processed to calculate, for each platform, an aggregate value based on a defined combination of measured system metrics, including the number of communications transmitted and actual completion times, and to select a subset of platforms based on comparisons of those aggregated values.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the amendments provided by Applicant provide for further defining the abstract idea and do not constitute additional elements. The additional elements identified by the Examiner were analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2, where the Examiner determined the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that in McRO, the claims do not merely recite a desired result, but instead recite specific computational steps that define how the result is achieved and found because they applied defined rules to specific inputs to generate a result, thereby defining a specific improvement in how the process was performed. According to Applicant the present claims apply defined computational steps to platform-specific inputs, including calculating aggregated values based on a combination of measured system metrics, and comparing those aggregated values across platforms to determine the subset of platforms. Applicant contends the claims require calculating a unified aggregated value for each platform based on measured system metrics and selecting platforms based on relative comparisons of those aggregated values, thereby imposing a specific rule governing how the secondary platforms are evaluated and further requires updating the feedback data in non- volatile memory for use in computing competitiveness scores for subsequent electronic requests, thereby introducing a feedback-driven mechanism that affects subsequent computations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the additional elements as provided for McRO are the rules that provide for the associated improvement to animation techniques that illustrate the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, whereas here Applicant’s contested step are a part of the recited abstract ideas identified by the Examiner. See also MPEP 2106.05 (a) that states “for example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims recite a concrete implementation in which a server retrieves platform- specific data, calculates aggregated values using multiple measured system metrics, and selects a subset of platforms based on comparative evaluation of those aggregated values, where the computed results are used to control which platforms are presented to the client device, thereby affecting system operation and user interface output. According to Applicant by selecting a subset of platforms based on these aggregated values, the system reduces the number of platforms that must be transmitted to and processed by the client device, thereby reducing communication overhead and processing associated with non-selected platforms. Applicant further contends that the claims recite updating platform-specific feedback data for use in subsequent requests, thereby introducing a feedback-driven mechanism in which the system adapts platform selection over time based on measured system metrics where this reflects a specific manner in which system behavior is modified across multiple requests. According to Applicant these elements define a specific manner in which the server processes platform data and controls system behavior.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the contested limitations by Applicant define the recited abstract ideas and do not constitute additional elements. The additional elements identified by the Examiner were analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2, where the Examiner determined the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more under Step 2B. Applicant’s proffered improvements the Examiner views are provided by performing the steps of the abstract idea for example to identify a subset of platforms to be shared with a user.
Applicant argues under Step 2B the claims require calculating platform-specific aggregated values using multiple defined inputs, including measured system metrics, selecting platforms based on comparative evaluation of those aggregated values across a plurality of platforms, and updating platform-specific data for use in subsequent electronic requests, where this combination of features defines a feedback-driven computational framework that evaluates and refines platform selection over time. According to Applicant this feedback-driven aggregation and updating mechanism is not a generic or conventional use of a computer, but instead reflects a specific way in which the server processes measured system metrics, combines multiple inputs into unified quantitative values, and maintains and updates platform-specific data to influence subsequent computations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the concepts relating to calculating based on multiple inputs, selecting platforms based on the analyzing, and updating data for use in subsequent requests the Examiner relates to concepts of the recited abstract idea and not additional elements of the claims. The additional element such as the server referenced by Applicant the Examiner views as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bain (US 20140122135) – directed to ranking and selecting eligibility vendors.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights