DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on May 26, 2026. Claims 1, 24 and 27 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-29 are pending. Claims 1, 24 and 27 are independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 24 and 27 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-29 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 14, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but instead to a specific technological solution for managing dynamically evolving case data in a secure, multi-user, and multi-site computing environment.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, for example, determining a current phase, and estimating completion times for steps in case progress can be manually and mentally performed by a person whether using or without a computer. The courts have held that “Automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.” See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”). Thus, the claims still recite an abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 16, Applicants argue that Bargagni does not describe or contemplate Applicants’ claims as amended herein, including functions configured to:
-“synch case-related actions with external calendar services”
-“estimate completion times for steps in case progress”…
However, Applicants’ arguments are directed the newly amended claims, and therefore, the newly amended claims will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-23 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 24-26 are directed to a method for case management without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 24-26 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claims 27-29 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
With respect to claims 24-26, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 24 recites limitations of “providing an electronic user interface that allows system users to remotely access case information via the web-based content access user interface, implementing a system service including: a file management system, a calendaring system, a communications system, and a rules, policies and procedures system, maintaining a database of content accessed by the users via the web-based content access user interface, receiving new content based on the case progress, creating modified content including customizing the cast management system and identifying and applying regulations to the content, reviewing case progress, synching case-related action, estimating completion times for steps in case progress, reviewing and editing information for a plurality of sites, hiding the electronic user interface, generating case reports on the case information, generating clearance report to apply laws and policies, extracting portions of the content from the database and providing the content to the users through the web-based content access user interface, and providing the content to at least six different types of users”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods that allow users to access web-based contents, managing commercial interactions and managing interactions between people. Thus, the claims fall within abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity grouping”. Further, claims 25-26 merely describing the types of the system users, which are also part of the abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of “a web-based content access user interface”, “an electronic user interface”, and “a quick escape button” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 24 recites no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 24 recites the additional elements of “a processor” as recited in claim 1 for performing the steps including providing (displaying) an electronic user interface that allows system users to remotely access case information via the web-based content access user interface, and providing (transmitting) the content to the users. The Specification describes that “an exemplary distributed response and resolution caseload management system, including a web-based content access user interface, including a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer executable instructions for configuring the processor to carry out a method” (see ¶ 38). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 24 recites no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 24 recites the additional elements of “a processor” as recited in claim 1 for performing the steps including providing (displaying) an electronic user interface that allows system users to remotely access case information via the web-based content access user interface, and providing (transmitting) the content to the users. The Specification describes that “an exemplary distributed response and resolution caseload management system, including a web-based content access user interface, including a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer executable instructions for configuring the processor to carry out a method” (see ¶ 38). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 24-26 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 1-23 and 27-29 parallel claims 24-26—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13, 16-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlin (US 2011/0184935), and in view of Lioyd et al., (US 2017/0126689, hereinafter: Lioyd), and further in view of Bargagni et al., (US 2016/0162454, hereinafter: Bargagni), and Upadhyay et al., (US 2021/0390495, hereinafter: Upadhyay), and Li et al., (US 2025/0190105, hereinafter: Li).
Regarding claim 1, Marlin discloses a case management system for case distribution, the system comprising:
a processor (see ¶ 61, ¶ 125), and
a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (see ¶ 61, ¶ 100), cause the processor to:
including a web-based content access user interface (see ¶ 64, ¶ 71, ¶ 131, ¶ 273), comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer executable instructions for configuring the processor (see ¶ 61, ¶ 100) to carry out a method including:
implement a system service including: a file management system, a calendaring system, a communications system, and a rules, policies and procedures system (see ¶ 22, ¶ 40, ¶ 60-62, ¶ 142, ¶ 150-152, ¶ 167-168);
maintain a centralized database of content accessed by the users via the web-based content access user interface (see Abstract; ¶ 61, ¶ 99, ¶ 107-108, ¶ 125);
review and edit information for a plurality of sites of a client organization associated with the case management system including case information and procedures applicable to one or more of plurality of sites (see ¶ 125-126, ¶ 143, ¶ 166, ¶ 287);
extract portions of the content from the database and provide the content to the users through the web-based content access user interface (see ¶ 113, ¶ 125, ¶ 253, ¶ 287);
wherein providing the content including the modified content to the users involves providing the content including the modified content to at least six different types of users, wherein providing the content includes restricting the users from accessing files, and wherein each of the different types of users is allowed access to different levels of information from the centralized database containing the modified content in real-time (see ¶ 69-70, ¶ 83, ¶ 93, ¶ 101, ¶ 109, ¶ 142-145, ¶ 150, ¶ 166, ¶ 287, claims 9-10), further wherein a user interface for the new content is customized to one or more of: case parameters, institutional parameters, and preferences of at least one of the six different types of users (see ¶ 97, ¶ 116, ¶ 180-181, ¶ 254, ¶ 263, ¶ 274).
Marlin discloses at least one data processor coupled to a data memory configured to maintain a database and is programmed to execute instruction; and a data storage located at servers that are remote from the terminal used to access the system over a data processing network (see ¶ 61, ¶ 125).
Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd in an analogous art for managing data accessing discloses
comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer executable instructions for configuring the processor to carry out a method (see ¶ 39, ¶ 64); and
providing an electronic user interface that allows system users to remotely access case information via the web-based content access user interface (see ¶ 40-41, ¶ 61-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin discloses the user can use the survey template to modify the default content or create a new survey to be sent (see ¶ 142).
Marlin and Lioyd do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Bargagni in an analogous art for managing content streaming discloses
receive new content based on case progress in real-time to create modified content including customizing the case management system to institutional parameters and terminology, and identifying and applying regulations to the content (see ¶ 6, ¶ 30, ¶ 36-37, ¶ 44, ¶ 50, ¶ 22, ¶ 37, ¶ 54, ¶ 65, claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin and in view of Lioyd to include teaching of Bargagni in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of presenting with more effective data content to user, and enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin, Lioyd and Bargagni do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Upadhyay in an analogous art for tracking computing progress discloses
review case progress at a case progress interface to determine a current phase from among one of the following phases: a receipt of report, determination of resolution, informal resolution, investigation, disciplinary action, formal complaint, notice of allegations, hearing, and appeal (see ¶ 6, ¶ 246, ¶ 294, ¶ 297);
synch case-related actions with external calendar services (see ¶ 162, ¶ 259-262);
estimate completion times for steps in case process (see ¶ 8, ¶ 293-295, ¶ 300);
generate case reports on the case information (see ¶ 114, ¶ 194);
generate clearance reports to apply laws and policies to the case information (see ¶ 75, ¶ 104, ¶ 194, ¶ 231, ¶ 246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focused solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin, Lioyd, Bargagni and Upadhyay do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Shi in an analogous art for controlling terminal screen discloses
hide the electronic user interface via a quick escape button configured for user safety and privacy in hostile access environments (see pg. 2, ¶ 5; pg. 4, ¶ 11; pg. 5, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more controllable solution for sensitive information. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Marlin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least six different types of users include case coordinators, case investigators, institutional stakeholders, a complainant and respondent in a particular case, advisors or attorneys to the complainant and respondent, and decisionmakers (see ¶ 70, ¶ 93, ¶ 109, ¶ 166-168, ¶ 267), wherein the preferences of the at least six different types of users include a frequency and type of case update status received (see ¶ 83, ¶ 169, ¶ 277, ¶ 292), further wherein the complainants control the modified content presented to the advisors and active status of the advisors in the case management system via advisor user interfaces (see ¶ 57, ¶ 265, ¶ ; further comprising a user interface for modifying custom fields in one or more user interfaces of the case management system; further comprising a client preferences user interface configured for creating document templates (see ¶ 147, ¶ 150).
In addition, claim 2 merely describes the types of user is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 3, Marlin discloses the system of claim 2, wherein at least the case coordinators, the case investigators and the institutional stakeholders are each allowed to access content including the modified content related to multiple response and resolution cases (see ¶ 142, ¶ 151-152, ¶ 287).
In addition, claim 3 merely describes the attribute of each user is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 4, Marlin discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the case investigators are provided access to less content than the case coordinators are, and the institutional stakeholders are provided access to less content including the modified content than the case investigators are (see ¶ 166-167).
In addition, claim 4 merely describes the different access between investigators and institutional stakeholders is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 5, Marlin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communications system is configured to receive, store, sort, display, create and send email messages between the users and track the email messages relative to a case to which they relate (see ¶ 22, ¶ 62, ¶ 83, ¶ 115, ¶ 255-256).
Regarding claim 6, Marlin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communications system is configured to send updates to the users (see Fig. 12: update & send back; ¶ 83, ¶ 299).
Regarding claim 7, Marlin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communications system is configured to allow a complainant and a respondent to restrict times during which they receive communications, further wherein the communications system is configured to allow the complainant and respondent to restrict at least one of the six different types of users from receiving communications from the communications system, wherein the at least one of the six different types of users includes the advisors or attorneys to the complainant and respondent (see ¶ 70, ¶ 93, ¶ 109, ¶ 166-168, ¶ 267).
Regarding claim 8, Marlin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the rules, policies and procedures system is configured to store and retrieve rules, policies and procedures related to federal, state, and organization-specific law and policies relating to at least one of a group including: sex-based discrimination, diversity, equity, and inclusion (see ¶ 3-4, ¶ 24, ¶ 36, ¶ 271).
In addition, claim 8 merely describes the type of rules, policies and procedures is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 9, Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the rules, policies and procedures system is configured to automatically provide time-sensitive alerts to at least some of the users based on requirements found in the rules, policies and procedures (see ¶ 167, ¶ 195-196).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the rules, policies and procedures system is configured to automatically provide alerts to at least some of the users based on requirements found in the rules, policies and procedures, after resolving conflicts between inconsistent requirements (see ¶ 110, ¶ 167, ¶ 195).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Marlin discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the rules, policies and procedures system is configured to resolve the conflicts between the inconsistent requirements based at least in part on case-specific information that has been previously stored in the database (see ¶ 26-27, ¶ 35, ¶ 59, ¶ 175, ¶ 269) .
Regarding claim 12, Marlin discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the case-specific information includes at least one of the following selected from a group consisting of the state in which an incident occurred, a specific location in which the incident occurred, the date an incident occurred, and a position held by the complainant and/or the respondent (see ¶ 73, ¶ 119, ¶ 166).
In addition, claim 12 merely describes the case-specific information is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 13, Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the file management system is configured to allow the users to upload evidence and information directly onto the system (see ¶ 134-136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Marlin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to allow the users to select one or multiple do not disturb times, during which information and system updates may be added to the portal, but the system does not send the user a text message or email, as they direct (see ¶ 67, ¶ 109, ¶ 260, ¶ 292).
Regarding claim 17, Marlin discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the system is configured to allow the case coordinators or the case investigators to access a color-coding system that informs them when deadlines are coming up soon or are overdue (see ¶ 80, ¶ 152, ¶ 166, ¶ 180).
Regarding claim 18, Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the system is configured to allow the case coordinators and the case investigators to go backwards within a case timeline and reopen a previous version of an item after it has been changed (see ¶ 128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19, Marlin discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the system is configured to allow the institutional stakeholders to update policies in the system, and the system applies updated procedural steps to future cases based on the updated policies (see ¶ 150-151, ¶ 292-293, ¶ 299).
Regarding claim 20, Marlin discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the system is configured to allow the institutional stakeholders to make procedural changes based on changes to law or regulation, and wherein the system automatically changes process steps and requirements in future cases based on the procedural changes made by the institutional stakeholders (see ¶ 121, ¶ 166, ¶ 266-267, ¶ 293).
Regarding claim 21, Marlin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to allow the users to make changes to a case via an application residing on a mobile device and have those changes be instantly reflected on a web browser interface, and vice versa (see ¶ 146-147, ¶ 261, ¶ 266).
Regarding claim 22, Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to allow one of the users to transfer a matter to another coordinator or advisor through a series of clicks which instantaneously moves the matter to a dashboard associated with the other coordinator or advisor (see ¶ 153-155, ¶ 186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 24, Marlin discloses a method, comprising:
implementing a system service including: a file management system, a calendaring system, a communications system, and a rules, policies and procedures system (see ¶ 22, ¶ 40, ¶ 60-62, ¶ 142, ¶ 150-152, ¶ 167-168);
maintaining a centralized database of content accessed by the users via the web-based content access user interface (see Abstract; ¶ 61, ¶ 107-108, ¶ 125);
reviewing and editing information for a plurality of sites of a client organization associated with the case management system including case information and procedures applicable to one or more of plurality of sites (see ¶ 125-126, ¶ 143, ¶ 166, ¶ 287);
extracting portions of the content from the database and providing the content including the modified content to the users through the web-based content access user interface (see ¶ 113, ¶ 125, ¶ 253, ¶ 287),
wherein providing the content including the modified content to the users involves providing the content including the modified content to at least six different types of users, wherein providing the content includes restricting the users from accessing files, and wherein each of the different types of users is allowed access to different levels of information from the centralized database containing the modified content in real-time (see ¶ 69-70, ¶ 83, ¶ 93, ¶ 101, ¶ 109, ¶ 142-145, ¶ 150, ¶ 166, ¶ 287, claims 9-10), further wherein a user interface for the new content is customized to one or more of: case parameters, institutional parameters, and preferences of at least one of the six different types of users (see ¶ 97, ¶ 116, ¶ 180-181, ¶ 254, ¶ 263, ¶ 274).
Marlin discloses at least one data processor coupled to a data memory configured to maintain a database and is programmed to execute instruction; and a data storage located at servers that are remote from the terminal used to access the system over a data processing network (see ¶ 61, ¶ 125).
Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd in an analogous art for managing data accessing discloses
providing an electronic user interface that allows system users to remotely access case information via a web-based content access user interface of a case management system for case distribution (see ¶ 40-41, ¶ 61-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin discloses the user can use the survey template to modify the default content or create a new survey to be sent (see ¶ 142).
Marlin and Lioyd do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Bargagni in an analogous art for managing content streaming discloses
receiving new content based on case progress in real-time (see ¶ 6, ¶ 30, ¶ 37, claim 8);
creating modified content including customizing the case management system to institutional parameters and terminology, and identifying and applying regulations to the content (see ¶ 22-24, ¶ 37, ¶ 44, ¶ 53-54, ¶ 65, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin and in view Lioyd to include teaching of Bargagni in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of presenting with more effective data content to user, and enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin, Lioyd and Bargagni do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Upadhyay in an analogous art for tracking computing progress discloses
reviewing case progress at a case progress interface to determine a current phase from among one of the following phases: a receipt of report, determination of resolution, informal resolution, investigation, disciplinary action, formal complaint, notice of allegations, hearing, and appeal (see ¶ 6, ¶ 246, ¶ 294, ¶ 297);
synching case-related actions with external calendar services (see ¶ 162, ¶ 259-262);
estimating completion times for steps in case process (see ¶ 8, ¶ 293-295, ¶ 300);
generating case reports on the case information (see ¶ 114, ¶ 194);
generating clearance reports to apply laws and policies to the case information (see ¶ 75, ¶ 104, ¶ 194, ¶ 231, ¶ 246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focused solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin, Lioyd, Bargagni and Upadhyay do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Shi in an analogous art for controlling terminal screen discloses
hide the electronic user interface via a quick escape button configured for user safety and privacy in hostile access environments (see pg. 2, ¶ 5; pg. 4, ¶ 11; pg. 5, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more controllable solution for sensitive information. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 25, Marlin discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the at least six different types of users include case coordinators, case investigators, institutional stakeholders, a complainant and respondent in a particular case, advisors or attorneys to the complainant and respondent, and decisionmakers (see ¶ 70, ¶ 93, ¶ 109, ¶ 166-168, ¶ 267), wherein the preferences of the at least six different types of users include a frequency and type of case update status received (see ¶ 83, ¶ 169, ¶ 277, ¶ 292), further wherein the complainants control the modified content presented to the advisors and active status of the advisors in the case management system via advisor user interfaces (see ¶ 57, ¶ 265, ¶ ; further comprising a user interface for modifying custom fields in one or more user interfaces of the case management system; further comprising a client preferences user interface configured for creating document templates (see ¶ 147, ¶ 150).
In addition, claim 25 merely describes the types of user is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 26, Marlin discloses the method of claim 25, wherein at least the case coordinators, the case investigators and the institutional stakeholders are each allowed to access content related to multiple response and resolution cases (see ¶ 142, ¶ 151-152).
In addition, claim 3 merely describes the attribute of each user is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 27, Marlin discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations of:
implementing a system service including: a file management system, a calendaring system, a communications system, and a rules, policies and procedures system (see ¶ 22, ¶ 40, ¶ 60-62, ¶ 142, ¶ 150-152, ¶ 167-168);
maintaining a centralized database of content accessed by the users via the web-based content access user interface (see Abstract; ¶ 61, ¶ 107-108, ¶ 125);
reviewing and editing information for a plurality of sites of a client organization associated with the case management system including case information and procedures applicable to one or more of plurality of sites (see ¶ 125-126, ¶ 143, ¶ 166, ¶ 287);
extracting portions of the content from the database and providing the content including the modified content to the users through the web-based content access user interface (see ¶ 113, ¶ 253, ¶ 287),
wherein providing the content including the modified content to the users involves providing the content including the modified content to at least six different types of users, wherein providing the content includes restricting the users from accessing files, and wherein each of the different types of users is allowed access to different levels of information (see ¶ 69-70, ¶ 93, ¶ 109, ¶ 142-145, ¶ 150, ¶ 166, ¶ 287), further wherein a user interface for the new content is customized to one or more of: case parameters, institutional parameters, and preferences of at least one of the six different types of users (see ¶ 97, ¶ 116, ¶ 180-181, ¶ 254, ¶ 263, ¶ 274).
Marlin discloses at least one data processor coupled to a data memory configured to maintain a database and is programmed to execute instruction; and a data storage located at servers that are remote from the terminal used to access the system over a data processing network (see ¶ 61, ¶ 125).
Marlin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lioyd in an analogous art for managing data accessing discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (see ¶ 39, ¶ 64); and
providing an electronic user interface that allows system users to remotely access case information via the web-based content access user interface (see ¶ 40-41, ¶ 61-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin discloses the user can use the survey template to modify the default content or create a new survey to be sent (see ¶ 142).
Marlin and Lioyd do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Bargagni in an analogous art for managing content streaming discloses
receiving new content based on case progress in real-time (see ¶ 6, ¶ 30, ¶ 37, claim 8);
creating modified content including customizing the case management system to institutional parameters and terminology, and identifying and applying regulations to the content (see ¶ 22-24, ¶ 37, ¶ 44, ¶ 53-54, ¶ 65, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin and in view of Lioyd to include teaching of Bargagni in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of presenting with more effective data content to user, and enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin, Lioyd and Bargagni do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Upadhyay in an analogous art for tracking computing progress discloses
reviewing case progress at a case progress interface to determine a current phase from among one of the following phases: a receipt of report, determination of resolution, informal resolution, investigation, disciplinary action, formal complaint, notice of allegations, hearing, and appeal (see ¶ 6, ¶ 246, ¶ 294, ¶ 297);
synching case-related actions with external calendar services (see ¶ 162, ¶ 259-262);
estimating completion times for steps in case process (see ¶ 8, ¶ 293-295, ¶ 300);
generating case reports on the case information (see ¶ 114, ¶ 194);
generating clearance reports to apply laws and policies to the case information (see ¶ 75, ¶ 104, ¶ 194, ¶ 231, ¶ 246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focused solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Marlin, Lioyd, Bargagni and Upadhyay do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Shi in an analogous art for controlling terminal screen discloses
hide the electronic user interface via a quick escape button configured for user safety and privacy in hostile access environments (see pg. 2, ¶ 5; pg. 4, ¶ 11; pg. 5, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin to include teaching of Lioyd in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more controllable solution for sensitive information. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 28, Marlin discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27, wherein the at least six different types of users include case coordinators, case investigators, institutional stakeholders, a complainant and respondent in a particular case, advisors or attorneys to the complainant and respondent, and decisionmakers (see ¶ 70, ¶ 93, ¶ 109, ¶ 166-168, ¶ 267), wherein the preferences of the at least six different types of users include a frequency and type of case update status received (see ¶ 83, ¶ 169, ¶ 277, ¶ 292), further wherein the complainants control the modified content presented to the advisors and active status of the advisors in the case management system via advisor user interfaces (see ¶ 57, ¶ 265, ¶ ; further comprising a user interface for modifying custom fields in one or more user interfaces of the case management system; further comprising a client preferences user interface configured for creating document templates (see ¶ 147, ¶ 150).
In addition, claim 28 merely describes the types of user is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 29, Marlin discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28, wherein at least the case coordinators, the case investigators and the institutional stakeholders are each allowed to access content related to multiple response and resolution cases (see ¶ 142, ¶ 151-152).
In addition, claim 29 merely describes the attribute of each user is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlin and in view of Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi as applied to claims 1-13, 16-22 and 24-29 above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy (US 8917855 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Marlin, Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Narayanaswamy in an analogous art for messaging content discloses the system of claim 1, wherein providing the content including the modified content to the users includes allowing supervisors to monitor progress of a case in real time (see col. 5, lines 23-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin and in view of Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi to include the teaching of Narayanaswamy in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for document management, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Marlin, Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Narayanaswamy discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to simultaneously share status updates with parties on both a portal and through a text message or email format (see col. 5, lines 10-22; col. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 14; col. 8, lines 11-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin and in view of Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi to include the teaching of Narayanaswamy in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for document management, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlin and in view of Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi as applied to claims 1-13, 16-22 and 24-29 above, and further in view of Eckel et al., (US 10943233 B2, hereinafter: Eckel).
Regarding claim 23, Marlin, Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Eckel in an analogous art for transaction authentication discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a digital watermark is applied to one or more of case documents and the user interfaces accessed within the distributed system, wherein the digital watermark identifies the one of the six different types of users accessing the watermarked document or user interface (see col. 7, line 34 to col. 8, line 29; claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marlin and in view of Lioyd, Bargagni, Upadhyay and Shi to include the teaching of Eckel in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional certification, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knox et al., (US 2016/0110688) discloses a case management system allows attorneys in a legal environment to efficiently store and manage content for their client and case matters.
McCarthy et al., (US 2015/0163206) discloses a secure data exchange system for managing content sharing between entities of data stored in the data storage nodes.
Shah (US 2015/0088942) discloses a system for providing file services by making one or more file services available for access on the given client by sending the given client device an instruction to dynamically update its graphical user interface to reflect that the one or more file services.
Varentsov et al., (US 11755348) discloses a method for populating text entry field, forms, and other elements within graphical user interfaces in direct remote access sessions and proxy remote access sessions to address restrictions arising from mobile applications.
Minnis et al., (WO 2008094712 A2) discloses a method for customizing web page content based on user search behavior, and dynamically reconfiguring web page content based on such portraits to product personalized web page content.
Ross et al., “Case Management”, The Kings Fund, Ideas that change health care. November 2011.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights