Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 11, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 12-18, and 23-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12 and Claim 23, recite the following, referencing claim 1 as exemplary, “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 memory at the server”
It is unclear to the Examiner whether the second recited memory is the same as the non-volatile memory or is supposed to be a different memory that is either volatile or non-volatile memory. The Examiner is interpreting that the second memory is the same as the non-volatile memory for examination purposes. (See also paragraph 53)
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 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 recite a method (process), Claims 12-18 recite a system (machine), and Claims 23-29 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, 4-7, 12-18, and 23-29 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.
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 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]; determining a subset of the secondary platforms based on the secondary platform parameters, the electronic request, and the ratings; [controlling the client device to] generate the subset of the secondary platforms; and receiving a selection response [from the client device], the selection response corresponding to a selected one of the subset of secondary platforms 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).
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.
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/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, 4, 7, and 26 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 2, 4, 7, and 26 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 25 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the results-oriented solution steps of “controlling the client device based on the primary request parameters” (See paragraph 75) and “controlling the client device based on the secondary request parameters” (See paragraphs 75 and 79) and are therefore viewed as equivalent 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 25 is 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, 15, 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, 15, and 18 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 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. Further the claim recites the results-oriented solution steps of “controlling the client device based on the primary request parameters” (See paragraph 75) and “controlling the client device based on the secondary request parameters” (See paragraphs 75 and 79) 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 14 is 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 December 11, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 9-13 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant contends the claims do not recite an abstract idea and are not directed to an abstract idea but rather directed to managing data records. According to Applicant the limitations of “receiving an electronic request at a server… retrieving secondary platform parameters stored in memory at the server… retrieving a rating for each secondary platform parameter, the ratings stored in memory at the server… controlling the client device to generate subset of the secondary platforms… etc.” do not constitute managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and there is no recitation of organizing the acquisition of services for a user.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations identified in the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis as part of the identified recited abstract idea provide for processing requests with respect to a first service (receiving an electronic request, retrieving secondary platform parameters and ratings for each secondary platform that represent a quality of match between a primary workflow respective to the primary platform and a secondary workflow that complements the primary workflow, determining a subset of the secondary platforms based on the electronic request, secondary platform parameters and ratings, and generate the subset) for example real estate transactions, legal information, counseling etc. and then curate/narrow the results for complementary workflows to the primary workflow for example identifying legal professionals for performing the complementary workflow such as title searching, estate planning, or other legal service (receiving a selection of a platform based on receiving primary request and secondary request parameters, outputs prompts based on the secondary request parameters and iteratively acquiring secondary request parameters by eliciting subsequent prompts). The Examiner maintains this outlines manner of organizing the acquiring of services for a user. The Examiner viewed the lone additional elements of the server, memory, and function of controlling the client device as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components.
Applicant argues that claims are integrated into a practical application in particular keyword search using a search engine is known to return irrelevant results which wastes computing resources while the claims solve this problem through:
receiving an electronic request at a server from a client device via a primary platform. Paragraph [0144] of the application explains that this conserves a significant amount of network resources in network 104 since client device 112 only needs to send the electronic request to server 108 rather than transmitting the request to multiple platforms 120.
retrieving secondary platform parameters stored in non-volatile memory at the server. Paragraph [0150] of the application provides that because the parameters are stored in non-volatile memory 212 at server 108, secondary platform 120 may only need to generate parameters once as opposed to generating parameters each time a client requests a quote. As such, computing resources at secondary platform are conserved.
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. Paragraph [0110] of the application states that as compared to certain prior art Internet searches, computing resources are not wasted by displaying results that are unsuitable for the request at block 304. Paragraph [0146] also provides that curating the number of options presented at client device 112 conserves computing and network resources.
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. Paragraph [0081] of the application provides that this iterative workflow allows prompts output at the client device to be curated so as not to waste computing resources.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the concepts of receiving an electronic request, retrieving the secondary platform parameters, retrieving the ratings for the secondary platform parameters, generating the subset of secondary platforms, displaying the subset of secondary platforms, request a selection for one of the secondary platforms in the subset, iteratively acquiring secondary request parameters by eliciting subsequent prompts are a part of the recited abstracted idea and do not constitute additional elements.
Regarding the receiving step the Examiner views that the additional elements of server, client device, and primary platform are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and do not add significantly more. There is a lack of technical specificity in terms of how the electronic request is received at a server from a client via primary platform as claimed to merit consideration as providing a technical improvement (i.e. conserving network resources) as alleged by Applicant.
Regarding the retrieving step the Examiner views the additional elements of a non-volatile memory and server as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Regarding Applicant’s proffered benefit the Examiners first notes that the conservation of resources would be contingent on the proffered platform parameters only generated once not each time the client requests a quote. Further the there is a lack of detail regarding how the secondary platform parameters are stored based on the single generation of parameters as asserted by Applicant to merit consideration as providing a technical improvement (i.e. conserving computing resources at the secondary platform) as alleged by Applicant.
Regarding the controlling step the Examiner views the additional elements of controlling the client device, user interface, client device, and display are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. The Examiner views the proffered benefits (i.e. not wasting computing resources through curating the options) are from performing steps of the abstract idea i.e. displaying the subset of secondary platforms and associated options and not provided by the additional elements of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Regarding the iteratively acquiring step the Examiner views the additional elements as the client devices and function of until the server determines that the secondary request parameters are complete, wherein the prompts are curated to conserve computing resource as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. There are no technical details recited in the claims regarding how the client device elicits subsequent prompts until the server determines that the secondary request parameters are complete or how the prompts are curated to conserve computing resources to merit consideration as integrating the abstract into a practical application by preventing the wasting of computing resources.
Applicant argues that when the additional elements of “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, 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, 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” when considered as an ordered combination the additional elements amount to significantly more through the non-conventional improvement in conserving computing and network resources and improving efficiency and therefore improve the functioning of the computer and the computer network.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees maintaining that the proffered limitations recite steps of the abstract idea and do not constitute additional elements. Further the additional elements identified by the Examiner are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical or adds significantly more to the abstract idea for the reasons discussed above regarding how each of the additional elements are recited with a lack of technical specificity to merit consideration as an improvement to technology rather than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
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.
Leger (US 20220245549) -directed to executing parallel workflows.
Makam et al. (US 20120137309) -directed to workflow integration and portal systems.
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.
/Michael J. Monaghan/Examiner, Art Unit 3629