Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This is a FINAL Office Action rejection prepared in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on
01/30/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 11-18 are pending.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 were amended.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 were cancelled.
Claims 11-18 were added.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the recited “the selected method” on page 6 line 15 should be amended as there is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Nonfunctional Language:
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the claimed limitations “…including the information about an event associated with an asset”, “…including at least one prompt associated with a transfer of the ownership of the asset at the elected quantity", “wherein the at least one prompt enforces one or more election settings stored in the database including an input data type, an increment, a permitted range, and a predetermined upper limit” and “…including a document for execution via a user signature, the document including the elected quantity of the asset;” are non-functional material that do not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the claimed limitations, “…including at least one inquiry and one or more selectable options for each inquiry;” is non-functional material that do not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the claimed limitations, “…including at least one inquiry associated with participation in the event;” is non-functional material that do not move to distinguish over prior art.
Conditional Language:
Regarding claim 6, the claimed limitation “responsive to a determination that the user is eligible: providing for display on a user interface…” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed limitation “…the second dashboard configuration is displayed on the user interface only if the user selects to participate in the event.” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Intended use/result Language:
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-8, the claimed limitations below consist of language disclosing an intended use/result, so they are considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
“used to…” in “a first attribute associated used to determine an eligibility of the user” in claims 1 and 6.
“to…” in “…user’s eligibility to view a first dashboard configuration…” in claims 1-2 and 6-7.
“for…” in “providing for display on the user’s user interface…” in claims 1-3 and 6-8.
“for…” in “…selected method for receiving consideration” in claims 1, 6 and 12-18.
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 1-3, 6-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 and 11-14 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 6-8 and 15-18 are directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 6, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method comprising:
retrieving, from a database: information of a user, including a first attribute used to determine an eligibility of the user, a second attribute associated with a multiplier of an asset, and a third attribute associated with an ownership of the asset; and information about an event associated with the asset
determining an eligibility to view a first dashboard configuration according to a first attribute associated with an eligibility of the user by comparing the first attribute to a predetermined eligibility standard stored in the database; and responsive to a determination that the user is eligible:
providing for display on a user interface of a user device the first dashboard configuration providing information about the event;
providing for display on the user interface a second dashboard configuration including at least one prompt associated with the second attribute;
receiving from the user device an election of a quantity of the asset to participate in the event, wherein the at least one prompt enforces one or more election settings stored in the database including an input data type, an increment, a permitted range, and a predetermined upper limit;
providing for display on the user interface a third dashboard configuration including at least one prompt associated with a transfer of the ownership of the asset at the elected quantity;
verifying the selected method for receiving consideration by confirming with a financial institution associated with the asset that the selected method is one of a plurality of active methods for receiving consideration;
providing for display on the user interface a fourth dashboard configuration including a document for execution via a user signature, the document including the elected quantity of the asset; and
storing to the database: the elected quantity, the selected method for receiving consideration provided by the user, and the document signed by the user.
Claim 6, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for verifying user eligibility, collecting, displaying and storing data. The claim achieves this by determining user’s eligibility to access data, providing a series of data displays and collecting user inputs based on determining that the user is eligible, and storing these inputs. As such the claim recites “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Claim 1 is similar to claim 6 but further includes the additional limitation of “receiving from the user device a selected method for receiving consideration for the asset;”. This additional limitation still recites an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of a memory, at least one processor, a database, a user device, a user interface, a first dashboard configuration, a second dashboard configuration, a third dashboard configuration and a fourth dashboard configuration merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-3, 7-8 and 11-18 have also been analyzed for subject matter
eligibility. However, claims 2-3, 7-8 and 11-18 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the
following reasons:
Claims 2 and 7 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
prior to determining the eligibility to view the first dashboard configuration, providing for display on the user interface a fifth dashboard configuration including at least one inquiry and one or more selectable options for each inquiry; and
storing the user selection in the database, wherein determining eligibility to view the first dashboard configuration is further based on the stored user selection.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a database, a user interface, a first dashboard configuration and a fifth dashboard configuration fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 3 and 8 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
after providing for display the first dashboard configuration and prior to providing for display the second dashboard configuration providing for display on the user interface a fifth dashboard configuration including at least one inquiry associated participation in the event, and
receiving a user selection from the user device; and
storing the user selection in the database, wherein the second dashboard configuration is displayed on the user interface only if the user selects to participate in the event.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a database, a user interface, a second dashboard configuration and a sixth dashboard configuration fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 11 and 15 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
preventing user access to at least the second dashboard configuration, the third dashboard configuration, and the fourth dashboard configuration after a predetermined date stored in the database.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a second dashboard configuration, the third dashboard configuration, the fourth dashboard configuration and a database fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 12 and 16 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
verifying the selected method for receiving consideration further includes at least one of checking for format errors, confirming with the financial institution that the selected method is active, or performing a temporary charge or hold.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 13 and 17 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
generating the document from the template further includes: mapping at least the elected quantity and the selected method for receiving consideration into placeholder fields; and applying rules to include or exclude conditional clauses based on user inputs.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 14 and 18 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
preventing progression of the user interface from the second dashboard configuration to the third dashboard configuration until the election of the quantity of the asset complies with the one or more election settings stored in the database; and preventing progression of the user interface from the third dashboard configuration to the fourth dashboard configuration until verifying the selected method for receiving consideration succeeds.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a user interface, a second dashboard configuration, a third dashboard configuration, a fourth dashboard configuration and a database fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 1-3, 6-8, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 20030061092 A1) in view of Gordon (US 11,164,254 B1) in further view of Fromm (US 20230246814 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dutta discloses:
determining an eligibility to view a first dashboard configuration according to a first attribute associated with an eligibility of the user by comparing the first attribute to a predetermined eligibility standard stored in the database; and (Dutta ¶0042, The voting coordinator device verifies that the user is an eligible voter for the selected election, shareholder meeting, or the like, and then presents a voter interface through which the user may cast votes and/or obtain information regarding the voting patterns of other voters. ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote. ¶0072, The user is then validated as a registered voter for the selected voting event (step 720). This may also include verifying that the user has not previously submitted a permanent vote through a voter database lookup.)
responsive to a determination that the user is eligible: providing for display on a user interface of a user device the first dashboard configuration providing information about the event; (Dutta ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote. Dutta ¶0073, Once the user is validated, the user is provided with a voting interface (step 730).)
providing for display on the user interface a second dashboard configuration including at least one prompt associated with the second attribute (Dutta ¶0057, If the user chooses to cast his/her vote, the choice to do so is provided to the controller 410 which then instructs the voter interface generation system 440 to provide an interface through which the user may enter his/her vote and any comments the user may have. Such an interface will be different depending on the particular election, shareholders meeting, or the like, in which the user is voting. Dutta ¶0062, FIG. 6A is an exemplary diagram of a voter interface for casting a vote according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 6A, the interface includes a listing of candidates or issues 610 and corresponding possible votes 620. The user may select one of the possible votes 620 for each issue and/or candidate. Of course there are limitations on the voting allowed by the voting coordinator device. For example, if there a number of candidates for a single position, only one of the candidates may be chosen. Similarly, a voter may not select both yes and no for an issue. Dutta ¶0074, A voter voting pattern interface is then provided (step 820))
receiving from the user device an election of a quantity of the asset to participate in the event, wherein (Dutta ¶0073, The user's input to the voting interface is received (step 740). This input may include the user's votes as well as any comments the user may have entered. ¶0074, A voter voting pattern interface is then provided (step 820) and a user's input into the interface is received (step 830). This input may include selections of voter categories and operands to thereby generate a search query. Alternatively, the input may be a selection of an option to search for voters similar to the user.)
providing for display on the user interface a third dashboard configuration including at least one prompt associated with a transfer of the ownership of the asset at the elected quantity; (Dutta ¶0008, In addition, the present invention may provide an interface through which a voter may enter a comment or the like. ¶0046, While displaying the aggregate numbers of votes of the voters in the selected voter category or categories, an interface through which a user may view comments entered by the voters in the selected category or categories may be provided. In this way, the user may obtain information as to why the voter voted in the manner that they did. Such information may be helpful to the user when deciding how to cast his/her vote. ¶0063, In addition, to the listings above, the interface provides a comment section 630 in which a user may enter a limited length comment for inclusion when the user's voting information is retrieved by a subsequent user. The comment may be a text comment of a predetermined length and is stored in association with the user's vote and other voter information in a voter profile entry in the voter database.)
storing to the database: the elected quantity, the selected method for receiving consideration provided by the user, and the document signed by the user. (Dutta ¶0057, The entries by the user into this interface may then be transmitted back to the controller 410 which instructs the vote processing system 460 to store the vote and any comments accordingly in the voter database. Dutta ¶0073, The user's input is then stored as part of a voter database entry for later use in providing voter voting pattern information to subsequent voters (step 750).)
Dutta further discloses:
a memory and at least one processor (Dutta ¶0029, Processor 302 and main memory 304 are connected to PCI local bus 306 through PCI bridge 308. Dutta ¶0051, In a preferred embodiment, the elements in FIG. 4 are implemented as computer instructions executed by one or more processors.)
a database (Dutta ¶0036, The voting coordinator device stores information regarding votes and voters in a database, such as storage unit 106 a plurality of remotely located storage devices, or one or more local storage devices. The database preferably includes a listing of registered voters and their personal information, such as their address, telephone number, age, race, gender, and other demographic or voter information. In addition, the database may, after the voter has voted, maintain a record of the vote cast by the voter, whether the vote has been made permanent, and any comments that the voter may have made regarding the vote. This database information is used by the voting coordinator device to provide interfaces to other voters or potential voters when a voter category is selected. Dutta ¶0059, FIG. 5 is an exemplary diagram of a voter database entry according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the voter database entry includes a field 510 for a voter identification and fields 520-540 for personal voter information such as name, address, telephone number, and the like. The voter database entry further includes fields 550-590 for entry of voter category information, such as a group identifier (field 550), a gender (field 560), a race (field 570), an age range (field 580), and the like.)
Dutta does not disclose, however Gordon teaches:
the at least one prompt enforces one or more election settings stored in the database including an input data type, an increment, a permitted range, and a predetermined upper limit; (Gordon col 68 lines 39-48, FIG. 122 illustrates a Refusal Right Share Selection GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The Refusal Right Share Selection GUI is operable to display information including, but not limited to, a number of shares the user is entitled to purchase, a text box to enter a number of shares, a cancel GUI button, and a submit GUI button. In a preferred embodiment, the platform does not allow a user to enter a number of shares in the text box that is greater than the number of shares the user is entitled to purchase.)
providing for display on the user interface a fourth dashboard configuration including a document for execution via a user signature, (Gordon col 34 lines 56-61, In one embodiment, the immutable ledger-based securities token platform provides time windows for various actions by investors, including but not limited to reviewing and signing documents, selling securities tokens (i.e., ask), purchasing securities tokens (i.e., bid), subsequent ownership exchange (i.e., custody), and trading securities tokens. Gordon col 66 lines 23-34, FIGS. 111-123 illustrate example GUIs for activities for a tokenized securities platform. Activities on the platform available to an investor relate to activities including, but not limited to, accepting an offer, placing a bid, placing an ask, a poll response, an approval, a disapproval, a refusal right, an offer right, an undersubscribed right, a co-sale right, signing of a document, request for a payment, a payment request in progress, a retry of a buyer payment, a retry of a seller payment, a failed payment, a fee submission, a completed sale, a completed purchase, acknowledging receipt of a document, downloading of a document, a failed refund, platform registration, and/or banking registration.)
the document including the elected quantity of the asset; and (Gordon col 72 lines 10-32, FIG. 136 illustrates an example of a Share Purchase Agreement for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The platform is operable to automatically enter information into a document (e.g., Share Purchase Agreement) including, but not limited to, a number of shares, a price per share, a total price, at least one fee, any taxes, a buyer name, a seller name, and/or a company name. In one embodiment, the platform is also operable to attach a second document to a first document. For example, the platform is operable to attach the Company's Limited Liability Company Agreement as Exhibit B. FIGS. 137-139 illustrate signature pages for a document (e.g., sale of shares from a seller to a buyer). FIG. 137 illustrates a buyer signature page according to one embodiment of the present invention. The buyer signature page includes, but is not limited to, a buyer signature, a buyer name, a date signed, a number of shares, a price per share, a share cost, fees, and/or a total cost. FIG. 138 illustrates a seller signature page according to one embodiment of the present invention. The seller signature page includes, but is not limited to, a seller signature, a seller name, a date signed, a number of shares, a price per share, a share cost, fees, taxes, and/or a receipt amount.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the invention of Dutta with the teaching of Gordon. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to improve the user experience by allowing the user to sign and submit documents from the same interface.
The combination of Dutta and Gordon do not disclose, however Fromm teaches:
receiving from the user device a selected method for receiving consideration for the asset; (¶0040, For instance, a user of a financial institution (e.g., a bank, a credit union, a lender, a mortgage company, a financial technology company, or the like) may provide their electronic credentials (e.g., a username and password or other credentials), for the account to be verified.)
verifying the selected method for receiving consideration by confirming with a financial institution associated with the asset that the selected method is one of a plurality of active methods for receiving consideration; (¶0039, A registry module 104, in one embodiment, is configured to verify an existence of and/or a status of one or more accounts of a user (e.g., financial accounts, online service provider accounts, social media accounts, or the like) with minimal or no user interaction, input, feedback, or the like. As used herein, account verification (or instant account verification) enables entities such as businesses, banks or other financial institutions, or the like to verify whether a user and/or account is valid or fraudulent in real-time, within seconds, or the like. ¶0040, A registry module 104 may log in on behalf of that user and securely return account information (e.g., the account and/or routing number, transaction data, or the like) to the financial institution as verified. ¶0048, In various embodiments, a registry module 104, in response to successfully logging into the user's account using the user's electronic credentials, may be configured to verify an existence of an account, a status of an account, contents of an account (e.g., an amount present in a financial account, verification of assets, verification of income, or the like), a capability or limitations of an account (e.g., other services that the user has access to, or does not have access to), a subscription and/or membership level associated with an account, a number of posts associated with an account (e.g. social media posts, image posts, product reviews, or the like), a most recent post associated with an account, a number of friends and/or followers associated with an account, or the like.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta and Gordon with the teaching of Fromm. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to protect all parties involved on the election by ensuring that the selected payment is valid.
Regarding claim 6, Dutta discloses:
retrieving, from a database: information of a user, including a first attribute used to determine an eligibility of the user, a second attribute associated with a multiplier of an asset, and a third attribute associated with an ownership of the asset; and information about an event associated with the asset; (Dutta ¶0036, The database preferably includes a listing of registered voters and their personal information, such as their address, telephone number, age, race, gender, and other demographic or voter information. In addition, the database may, after the voter has voted, maintain a record of the vote cast by the voter, whether the vote has been made permanent, and any comments that the voter may have made regarding the vote. This database information is used by the voting coordinator device to provide interfaces to other voters or potential voters when a voter category is selected. ¶0044, The voting coordination device of the present invention retrieves information from the database based on the particular voter category or categories selected by the user and uses this information to generate a display of voting patterns for the selected categories. ¶0054, The controller 410 instructs the search engine 450 to retrieve the voter profile for the entered voter identification from a voter database via the database interface 430. As previously mentioned, the voter database may be local or remote with respect to the voting coordinator device. ¶0056, If the user enters a selection to retrieve voter voting pattern information based on one or more voter categories or groupings, the selection is sent to the controller 410 which then instructs the search engine to retrieve voter voting pattern information from the voter database based on the selected voter categories or groupings. ¶0059, FIG. 5 is an exemplary diagram of a voter database entry according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the voter database entry includes a field 510 for a voter identification and fields 520-540 for personal voter information such as name, address, telephone number, and the like. The voter database entry further includes fields 550-590 for entry of voter category information, such as a group identifier (field 550), a gender (field 560), a race (field 570), an age range (field 580), and the like.)
determining an eligibility to view a first dashboard configuration according to a first attribute associated with an eligibility of the user by comparing the first attribute to a predetermined eligibility standard stored in the database; and (Dutta ¶0042, The voting coordinator device verifies that the user is an eligible voter for the selected election, shareholder meeting, or the like, and then presents a voter interface through which the user may cast votes and/or obtain information regarding the voting patterns of other voters. ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote. ¶0072, The user is then validated as a registered voter for the selected voting event (step 720). This may also include verifying that the user has not previously submitted a permanent vote through a voter database lookup.)
responsive to a determination that the user is eligible: providing for display on a user interface of a user device the first dashboard configuration providing information about the event; (Dutta ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote. Dutta ¶0073, Once the user is validated, the user is provided with a voting interface (step 730).)
providing for display on the user interface a second dashboard configuration including at least one prompt associated with the second attribute (Dutta ¶0057, If the user chooses to cast his/her vote, the choice to do so is provided to the controller 410 which then instructs the voter interface generation system 440 to provide an interface through which the user may enter his/her vote and any comments the user may have. Such an interface will be different depending on the particular election, shareholders meeting, or the like, in which the user is voting. Dutta ¶0062, FIG. 6A is an exemplary diagram of a voter interface for casting a vote according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 6A, the interface includes a listing of candidates or issues 610 and corresponding possible votes 620. The user may select one of the possible votes 620 for each issue and/or candidate. Of course there are limitations on the voting allowed by the voting coordinator device. For example, if there a number of candidates for a single position, only one of the candidates may be chosen. Similarly, a voter may not select both yes and no for an issue. Dutta ¶0074, A voter voting pattern interface is then provided (step 820))
receiving from the user device an election of a quantity of the asset to participate in the event, wherein (Dutta ¶0073, The user's input to the voting interface is received (step 740). This input may include the user's votes as well as any comments the user may have entered. ¶0074, A voter voting pattern interface is then provided (step 820) and a user's input into the interface is received (step 830). This input may include selections of voter categories and operands to thereby generate a search query. Alternatively, the input may be a selection of an option to search for voters similar to the user.)
providing for display on the user interface a third dashboard configuration including at least one prompt associated with a transfer of the ownership of the asset at the elected quantity; (Dutta ¶0008, In addition, the present invention may provide an interface through which a voter may enter a comment or the like. ¶0046, While displaying the aggregate numbers of votes of the voters in the selected voter category or categories, an interface through which a user may view comments entered by the voters in the selected category or categories may be provided. In this way, the user may obtain information as to why the voter voted in the manner that they did. Such information may be helpful to the user when deciding how to cast his/her vote. ¶0063, In addition, to the listings above, the interface provides a comment section 630 in which a user may enter a limited length comment for inclusion when the user's voting information is retrieved by a subsequent user. The comment may be a text comment of a predetermined length and is stored in association with the user's vote and other voter information in a voter profile entry in the voter database.)
storing to the database: the elected quantity, the selected method for receiving consideration provided by the user, and the document signed by the user. (Dutta ¶0057, The entries by the user into this interface may then be transmitted back to the controller 410 which instructs the vote processing system 460 to store the vote and any comments accordingly in the voter database. Dutta ¶0073, The user's input is then stored as part of a voter database entry for later use in providing voter voting pattern information to subsequent voters (step 750).)
Dutta does not disclose, however Gordon teaches:
the at least one prompt enforces one or more election settings stored in the database including an input data type, an increment, a permitted range, and a predetermined upper limit; (Gordon col 68 lines 39-48, FIG. 122 illustrates a Refusal Right Share Selection GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The Refusal Right Share Selection GUI is operable to display information including, but not limited to, a number of shares the user is entitled to purchase, a text box to enter a number of shares, a cancel GUI button, and a submit GUI button. In a preferred embodiment, the platform does not allow a user to enter a number of shares in the text box that is greater than the number of shares the user is entitled to purchase.)
providing for display on the user interface a fourth dashboard configuration including a document for execution via a user signature, (Gordon col 34 lines 56-61, In one embodiment, the immutable ledger-based securities token platform provides time windows for various actions by investors, including but not limited to reviewing and signing documents, selling securities tokens (i.e., ask), purchasing securities tokens (i.e., bid), subsequent ownership exchange (i.e., custody), and trading securities tokens. Gordon col 66 lines 23-34, FIGS. 111-123 illustrate example GUIs for activities for a tokenized securities platform. Activities on the platform available to an investor relate to activities including, but not limited to, accepting an offer, placing a bid, placing an ask, a poll response, an approval, a disapproval, a refusal right, an offer right, an undersubscribed right, a co-sale right, signing of a document, request for a payment, a payment request in progress, a retry of a buyer payment, a retry of a seller payment, a failed payment, a fee submission, a completed sale, a completed purchase, acknowledging receipt of a document, downloading of a document, a failed refund, platform registration, and/or banking registration.)
the document including the elected quantity of the asset; and (Gordon col 72 lines 10-32, FIG. 136 illustrates an example of a Share Purchase Agreement for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The platform is operable to automatically enter information into a document (e.g., Share Purchase Agreement) including, but not limited to, a number of shares, a price per share, a total price, at least one fee, any taxes, a buyer name, a seller name, and/or a company name. In one embodiment, the platform is also operable to attach a second document to a first document. For example, the platform is operable to attach the Company's Limited Liability Company Agreement as Exhibit B. FIGS. 137-139 illustrate signature pages for a document (e.g., sale of shares from a seller to a buyer). FIG. 137 illustrates a buyer signature page according to one embodiment of the present invention. The buyer signature page includes, but is not limited to, a buyer signature, a buyer name, a date signed, a number of shares, a price per share, a share cost, fees, and/or a total cost. FIG. 138 illustrates a seller signature page according to one embodiment of the present invention. The seller signature page includes, but is not limited to, a seller signature, a seller name, a date signed, a number of shares, a price per share, a share cost, fees, taxes, and/or a receipt amount.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the invention of Dutta with the teaching of Gordon. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to improve the user experience by allowing the user to sign and submit documents from the same interface.
The combination of Dutta and Gordon do not disclose, however Fromm teaches:
verifying the selected method for receiving consideration by confirming with a financial institution associated with the asset that the selected method is one of a plurality of active methods for receiving consideration; (¶0039, A registry module 104, in one embodiment, is configured to verify an existence of and/or a status of one or more accounts of a user (e.g., financial accounts, online service provider accounts, social media accounts, or the like) with minimal or no user interaction, input, feedback, or the like. As used herein, account verification (or instant account verification) enables entities such as businesses, banks or other financial institutions, or the like to verify whether a user and/or account is valid or fraudulent in real-time, within seconds, or the like. ¶0040, For instance, a user of a financial institution (e.g., a bank, a credit union, a lender, a mortgage company, a financial technology company, or the like) may provide their electronic credentials (e.g., a username and password or other credentials), for the account to be verified. A registry module 104 may log in on behalf of that user and securely return account information (e.g., the account and/or routing number, transaction data, or the like) to the financial institution as verified. ¶0048, In various embodiments, a registry module 104, in response to successfully logging into the user's account using the user's electronic credentials, may be configured to verify an existence of an account, a status of an account, contents of an account (e.g., an amount present in a financial account, verification of assets, verification of income, or the like), a capability or limitations of an account (e.g., other services that the user has access to, or does not have access to), a subscription and/or membership level associated with an account, a number of posts associated with an account (e.g. social media posts, image posts, product reviews, or the like), a most recent post associated with an account, a number of friends and/or followers associated with an account, or the like.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta and Gordon with the teaching of Fromm. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to protect all parties involved on the election by ensuring that the selected payment is valid.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm disclose:
prior to determining the eligibility to view the first dashboard configuration: providing for display on the user interface a fifth dashboard configuration including at least one inquiry and one or more selectable options; and storing the user selection in the database; wherein determining eligibility to view the first dashboard configuration is further based on the stored user selection. (Dutta ¶0041, When a user first accesses the voting coordinator device via the user's client device, the user may be presented with an interface through which the user may select a particular election, shareholders meeting, or initiative in which to vote. The user may select a particular election, shareholders meeting, or the like, at which time the voting coordinator device may request that the user enter a voter identification, such as a voter identification number, name, password, and the like. Dutta ¶0042, The voting coordinator device verifies that the user is an eligible voter for the selected election, shareholder meeting, or the like, and then presents a voter interface through which the user may cast votes and/or obtain information regarding the voting patterns of other voters. Dutta ¶0053, In operation, the controller 410 receives a logon request from a client device via the network interface 420. In response, the controller 410 instructs the voter interface generation system 440 to provide a voter interface, i.e. a user interface, to the client device. The voter interface provides the user of the client device with a means by which the user may select an election, shareholder meeting, or the like, to participate in and also provide voter identification information. Dutta ¶0054, The controller 410 then receives a selection of an election, shareholder meeting, or the like, from the user of the client device along with a voter identification of the user. The controller 410 instructs the search engine 450 to retrieve the voter profile for the entered voter identification from a voter database via the database interface 430. As previously mentioned, the voter database may be local or remote with respect to the voting coordinator device. Dutta ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote.)
While Dutta does not disclose storing the user selection in a database, it would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to maintain a traceable record of user selections to facilitate future audits and accountability.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm disclose:
after providing for display the first dashboard configuration and prior to providing for display the second dashboard configuration: providing for display on the user interface a fifth dashboard configuration including at least one inquiry associated with participation in the event, and receiving a user selection from one or more selectable options; and storing the user selection in the database; wherein the second dashboard configuration is displayed on the user’s user interface only if the user selects to participate in the event. (Gordon col 67 lines 40-52, FIG. 116 illustrates an Activity GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The Activity GUI is operable to display information including, but not limited to, a description of the activity, additional details regarding the activity, and/or a requested action. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 116, the description of the activity is execute an offer; the additional details regarding the activity describes the number of shares, the share class, the share price, a right to purchase, and a description of what happens if multiple parties accept the offer; and the requested action is an execution of the offer right to purchase the shares via a yes GUI button or a no GUI button. Col 68 lines 39-48, FIG. 121 illustrates an Activity GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to another embodiment of the present invention. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 121, the description of the activity is execute a right of first refusal; the additional details regarding the activity describes the number of shares, the share class, the share price, and a right of first refusal; and the requested action is an execution of the right of first refusal via a yes GUI button or a no GUI button.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm with the additional teaching of Gordon. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to provide an additional or intermediary dashboard that provides the user to confirm that he/she wants to continue with the transaction (i.e. vote).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm further disclose:
verifying the selected method for receiving consideration further includes at least one of checking for format errors, confirming with the financial institution that the selected method is active, or performing a temporary charge or hold. (Fromm ¶0039, A registry module 104, in one embodiment, is configured to verify an existence of and/or a status of one or more accounts of a user (e.g., financial accounts, online service provider accounts, social media accounts, or the like) with minimal or no user interaction, input, feedback, or the like. As used herein, account verification (or instant account verification) enables entities such as businesses, banks or other financial institutions, or the like to verify whether a user and/or account is valid or fraudulent in real-time, within seconds, or the like.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm with the additional teaching of Fromm. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to protect all parties involved on the election by ensuring that the selected payment is valid.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta, Gordon and Fromm as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Louch (US 20080034314 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm do not disclose, however Louch teaches:
preventing user access to at least the second dashboard configuration, the third dashboard configuration, and the fourth dashboard configuration after a predetermined date stored in the database. (Louch ¶0066, In some implementations, the dashboard can be automatically dismissed (i.e., without user input) after some predetermined period of time or in response to a trigger event. ¶0088, After preview, the dashboard can be saved 442. Saving can include naming or otherwise identifying the dashboard. Saving can also include specifying various types of metadata, such as the name of the author of the dashboard, the date and time the dashboard was created, privileges associated with the dashboard, themes or other searchable criteria associated with the dashboard, and any other information that can be used to manage, populate, or otherwise facilitate the interaction or use of the dashboard. ¶0093, Dashboards can be associated with rules that determine the availability of the dashboard, such as who can access the dashboard, where the dashboard can be accessed and when the dashboard can be accessed. For example, a dashboard could be associated with time-based rules restricting the times when the dashboard, or particular feature of the dashboard, can be accessed and/or used.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm with the teaching of Louch. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to enforce security, time rules and ensure that users access the dashboards only during allowed timeframe.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta, Gordon and Fromm as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Anjum (US 20220138161 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm further disclose:
mapping at least the elected quantity and the selected method for receiving consideration into placeholder fields; and (Gordon col 51 lines 1-15, FIG. 56B illustrates an example of an Upload Shareholder Template. The example shown in FIG. 56B is a spreadsheet template that was downloaded from the platform and populated with information from four shareholders. The template was dynamically generated in real time and has a tab for each of the share classes for the company along with the data collected for each share class. Each share class may have different data based on the type of share class (e.g., employee options have a strike price, and common shares do not). Additionally, there is a tab in the spreadsheet with instructions for completing the worksheet. Advantageously, the template is unique to each issuer, and uses the information in the platform to generate the template in real time. This is unlike traditional systems that use a common template for every issuer. Gordon col 62 lines 4-17, In a preferred embodiment, a message contains at least one templated item. Specifically, a templated item is unique information stored about an audience member in the platform. As messages are generated for the audience member, their specific domain information including, but not limited to, a name, at least one securities class held, a number of securities held in each of the at least one securities class, a date of acquisition for all held securities, an amount vested (if a vesting type security), and/or any other data known about the audience member is dynamically inserted into the message that is provided to the audience member. Meaning, each audience member receives a unique message as their ownership and profile data in the platform is unique when the at least one templated item is included. Gordon col 72 lines 10-20, FIG. 136 illustrates an example of a Share Purchase Agreement for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The platform is operable to automatically enter information into a document (e.g., Share Purchase Agreement) including, but not limited to, a number of shares, a price per share, a total price, at least one fee, any taxes, a buyer name, a seller name, and/or a company name. In one embodiment, the platform is also operable to attach a second document to a first document. For example, the platform is operable to attach the Company's Limited Liability Company Agreement as Exhibit B.)
The combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm do not disclose, however Anjum teaches:
applying rules to include or exclude conditional clauses based on user inputs. (¶0047, For example, a template for a document can include document clauses and content for a common type of document used by an entity 140, such as a contract, agreement, periodic report, or the like. For example, a template sales contract can include pre-generated boilerplate and pre-written clauses for common services offered to clients. Templates can include blank fields which can be filled in by a user 130 when creating a document based on the template. In some implementations, templates include “merge fields” which can automatically pull in data from an outside database or data source (such as a date, customer information, or the like). In some implementations, templates include template logic controlling whether a certain document clauses and/or fields will appear in a given document generated with the automatic template. The template logic can comprise one or more “logic conditions” which, if satisfied, affect the inclusion of an associated conditional document clause in the generated document. A conditional document clause can include conditional document text and/or merge fields which will be included in a generated document if the associated logic condition is satisfied. For example, an automatic template can be used to generate a contract for a service agreement, with merge fields related to the known information about the client and the service purchase, and with template logic to include different clauses depending on the specific service being purchased.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm with the teaching of Anjum. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to add only necessary and relevant information to the document based on the rules/conditions established.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm do not disclose, however Ethier (US 8977951 B2):
preventing progression of the user interface from the second dashboard configuration to the third dashboard configuration until the election of the quantity of the asset complies with the one or more election settings stored in the database; and preventing progression of the user interface from the third dashboard configuration to the fourth dashboard configuration until verifying the selected method for receiving consideration succeeds. (Ethier col 4 lines 3-5, The online application form has several form fields that are required (to be filled in by the user), check boxes and radio buttons and the like. col 9 lines 51-57, In one configuration, the wizard panel generator 170 only displays the wizard panel 135-1 when a user 108, such as a developer, navigates to that particular wizard panel 135- 1. Enforcing mandatory fields on a wizard panel 135-1 forces a user 108 to fill in required objects 125-1 (i.e., form fields, etc.) prior to navigating to a subsequent wizard panel 135-1.Ethier col 12 lines 42-56, Alternatively, in step 208, the wizard generating process 140-2 identifies at least one policy 150 associated with the electronic form 120 to be included within the wizard panel 135-1. The electronic form 120 may have policies 150, such as validation rules, associated with form fields. For example, the electronic form 120 may require that a user 108 fill in a telephone number with a particular format for the telephone number. Or, the electronic form 120 may require that certain form fields on the electronic form 120 must be filled out, while other form fields are optional. The wizard generating process 140-2 identifies any policies 150, or validation rules, associated with the electronic form 120, and includes these policies 150 when generating the wizard panels. Thus, required form fields within the electronic form 120 become required form fields within the wizard panel 135-1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta, Gordon and Fromm with the teaching of Ethier. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to ensure that all data is complete and valid before moving to the next dashboard.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claim objections in the previous non-final action dated 11/04/2025 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents several assertions, i.e., “the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One”, “the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific, computer-implemented workflow that constrains and sequences user interactions at the system level and integrates backend validation into the user-interface flow” and “the claims amount to significantly more under step 2B”. The basis of these assertions are based on the applicant’s argument on pages 14-21.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that “the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One”, the examiner finds it not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that the claims remain directed to an abstract idea, specifically directed toward certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)). The abstract idea described in the claims belongs the group of commercial or legal interactions because it focus on collecting user information, verifying user eligibility, collecting inputs, displaying and storing data. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), in step 2A prong one to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the specific limitations in the claim under examination must be identified and analyzed to determine whether they fall within at least one of the recognize groupings of abstract ideas. If one of the limitations in the examined claim falls within one of the groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea and the examination continues to step 2A prong two. Further, the applicant assertions that “the amended claims require retrieval of information from a database, comparison to a predetermined eligibility standard stored in the database, enforcement of database-stored election constraints (including input format, increments, and ranges), and confirmation with a financial institution that a method is an active method for receiving consideration.” and “these limitations are not practically performable in the human mind and therefore do not fall within the mental-process grouping.” are also not persuasive and the examiner disagrees. First, the examiner did not identify the claims as a mental process. Rather, the claims were identified as failing within “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Second, the applicants assertion that the human mind cannot practically perform the steps, does not confer patent eligibility. The use of generic computer components to carry out data-processing tasks does not transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. Furthermore, the alleged recitation of “a particular computer-implemented control workflow governing user-interface sequencing, rule enforcement, backend verification, and document generation” and a “concrete mechanisms-database retrieval and comparison, stored-rule enforcement for election inputs, backend verification via a financial institution, and template-based document generation” merely represent generic data processing functions that automates a process rather than improving the functioning of a computer or related technology.
Regarding, applicant’s assertion that “the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific, computer-implemented workflow that constrains and sequences user interactions at the system level and integrates backend validation into the user-interface flow”, the examiner finds it not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The examiner finds that a method for verifying user eligibility, collecting, displaying and storing data using generic computing components does not provide any specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology. The applying of the abstract idea does not improve upon the user device nor does it improve upon the processor, database or user interface. Therefore, the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond applying these tools to an abstract concept and thus fail to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
Regarding, to applicant’s assertion that “the claims amount to significantly more under step 2B”, the examiner also finds it not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claim invention pertains to a method for verifying user eligibility, collecting, displaying and storing data which is an implementation of certain methods of organizing human activity as mentioned above. Further, the additional elements of a memory, at least one processor, a database, a user device, a user interface, a first dashboard configuration, a second dashboard configuration, a third dashboard configuration and a fourth dashboard configuration, as recited in the claim, are merely additional elements representing conventional computer technologies employed to apply the underlying abstract idea. To meet the requirements for patent eligibility, the claim must do more than simply apply this abstract idea using generic technological tools. Therefore, the recited claim, does not include any additional features that rise to the level of an inventive concept under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework. In response to the applicant assertion that “claim 1 recites an analogous ordered combination in system form, and newly added dependent claims further recite preventing progression between dashboard configurations until validation and verification succeed. This ordered combination defines a non-generic control architecture that constrains user-interface progression using database-stored rule enforcement and backend verification integrated into the interface flow, consistent with BASCOM's recognition that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional arrangement of known components.”, the examiner asserts that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 was not based on the determination that the recited steps are routine or conventional. Rather, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, whether the claimed steps are routine or unconventional does not overcome the rejection. Even assuming, arguendo, that the steps are not routine or conventional, the claim still recites the abstract idea implemented using generic computer components and do not amount to significantly more than the underlining abstract idea. Finally, regarding applicant assertion that the newly added claims provide explicit and technical limitations that rebuts the office’s assertion that the recited computer elements "merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea", the examiner finds it not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claimed “system-level control over interface state transitions-i.e., the system does not merely "display" information, but instead enforces database-stored rules and backend verification results as preconditions to advancing the workflow” amounts to applying rules to data and conditionally controlling a workflow/process, which is an abstract idea. Collecting data, analyzing it and using the results to control a workflow is an abstract idea. This process does not change how the database operates or impose a technical mechanism that improve on any of the other computer technology recited in the claim.
As such the claims remain within an abstract idea and rejection is maintained based on the
newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the newly added claimed expression in the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
US 20110191147 A1 to Cunningham discloses: Systems, methods and software applications for conducting network shareholder voting actions and shareholder proposals by utilizing a server data base. A web site enables any member share holder in a network of shareholder members to initiate a vote and allow all network members of the same stock, the option to vote for, against, or to abstain from the said subject voting process. All members of the network are updated about the progress of voting results as they occur. The system also provides means for the origination of a regulatory compliant corporate proposal while providing regulatory compliance information and a time keeping and notification function to assist in compliance procedures.
US 20100313122 A1 to Sandford discloses: An object configuration module for configuring an object retrieves a view object associated with a user from a database. The view object may comprise a plurality of attributes. The object configuration module may further retrieve configuration information for the view object from the database. The configuration information may comprise properties of the attributes, and the properties may be customized by the user for the view object. The object configuration module may then set the properties for each of the attributes based on the retrieved configuration information.
US 20250080318 A1 to Seenivasagam discloses: Encrypted poll responses from a group of users are validated homomorphically in an online polling system. Mathematical operations are performed on encrypted poll responses to produce validated encrypted results. The operations, when applied to plaintext of the encrypted poll response, normalize the plaintext when the poll response is valid, and nullify the plaintext when the poll response is invalid. The validated encrypted poll responses can be analyzed, without decryption, to provide a variety of results in encrypted format. The analysis may include summing the validated poll responses to produce a tally and may also be analyzed in accordance with associated cleartext metadata. Multiple sets of encrypted poll responses to multiple poll queries can be analyzed to determine relationships with respect to each other, in encrypted form, as well as in conjunction with cleartext parameters.
US 20210365275 A1 to Vattikuti discloses: A system has a processor and a memory accessible by the processor and storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) for display on a display device. The GUI may include a job management dashboard that has multiple graphical icons that are representative of respective jobs associated with a client instance. The processor may receive one or more user inputs indicative of a selection of a particular graphical icon in the job management dashboard and transmit an update to GUI to the display device. The updated GUI may include a job overview window associated with a particular job, and the job overview window may display a graph of multiple run times associated with the particular job over a period of time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights