The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is in response to the application filed 12/18/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because purported merits are recited (see below, emphasis added). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically as to claim 1, line 3 recites “an input configured to receive …inputs” and refers to “the input” through the limitations of the claim. It is unclear what “the input” refers back to in the claim and how an input is configured to receive inputs. The claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The specification provides the “input” as best may be understood, correlate to “data” based on para 31 of originally filed specification “Calculator Engine 122 that receives inputs such as tax status and annual payouts” and was silent to “an input configured to receive.” Applicant should clarify the input in the claimed inventions.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1 and recites the same “input.” Applicant should clarify.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11, respectively, are rejected for the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system and method. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1.
The claims recite the steps of
A…method that implements a Global Withholding Tax …, wherein the … method comprises the steps of: receiving, via an input, one or more payment instructions with one or more withholding tax data elements wherein the one or more withholding tax data elements comprise one or more jurisdictions and wherein an input configured to receive one or more inputs from one or more client …; dynamically adjusting a set of required data elements based on an input attribute relating to the one or more jurisdictions, wherein the input attribute is retrieved from the one or more payment instructions; determining… whether the set of required data elements specific to a region has been received; based on the set of required data elements, generating… a withholding tax rate and type that is in compliance with the one or more jurisdictions; automatically applying…the withholding tax rate and type to the one or more payment instructions; determining… a risk assessment for the withholding tax rate and type wherein the risk assessment is generated using an …model based on tagged historical data associated with a specific region; and transmitting,… the risk assessment to a receiving entity and wherein the risk assessment is used to continuously train the adaptive risk model. receiving, via the input, one or more payment instructions with one or more withholding tax data elements wherein the one or more withholding tax data elements comprise one or more jurisdictions; dynamically adjusting a set of required data elements based on an input attribute relating to the one or more jurisdictions, wherein the input attribute is retrieved from the one or more payment instructions; determining…whether the set of required data elements specific to a region has been received; based on the set of required data elements, generating… a withholding tax rate and type that is in compliance with the one or more jurisdictions; automatically applying…the withholding tax rate and type to the one or more payment instructions; determining…a risk assessment for the withholding tax rate and type wherein the risk assessment is generated using an … risk model based on tagged historical data associated with a specific region; and transmitting,… the risk assessment to a receiving entity and wherein the risk assessment is used to continuously train the adaptive risk model.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim as a whole recites how to assess risk in withholding taxes in a global system, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus falls within the abstract grouping of certain method of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to assess risk in withholding taxes in a global system in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (an interactive user interface, a communication network, engine, processor storage mechanism,) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing economic process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to assess risk in withholding taxes in a global system in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, these additional claim elements 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 claim is ineligible.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims 7 and 17 include the additional elements of a calculator processor; claims 8 and 18 include a rules engine, similar to claims 1 and 11. Under Step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to assess risk in withholding taxes in a global system, in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (processor and engine) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing economic process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to assess risk in withholding taxes in a global system in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, these additional claim elements 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 claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims, 2-6, 9-10, 12-16, 19-20, further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 (further defining the withholding tax data elements, input attributes, jurisdictions for example). The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered as a whole, individually and as an ordered combination. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Subject Matter Free from Prior art
The overall claimed combination of a method and related system that implements a Global Withholding Tax Engine, wherein the computer-implemented method comprises the steps of: receiving, via an input, one or more payment instructions with one or more withholding tax data elements wherein the one or more withholding tax data elements comprise one or more jurisdictions and wherein an input configured to receive one or more inputs from one or more client devices; dynamically adjusting a set of required data elements based on an input attribute relating to the one or more jurisdictions, wherein the input attribute is retrieved from the one or more payment instructions; determining, via a global withholding tax processor, whether the set of required data elements specific to a region has been received; based on the set of required data elements, generating, via the global withholding tax processor, a withholding tax rate and type that is in compliance with the one or more jurisdictions; automatically applying, via the global withholding tax processor, the withholding tax rate and type to the one or more payment instructions; determining, via a liability processor, a risk assessment for the withholding tax rate and type wherein the risk assessment is generated using an adaptive risk model based on tagged historical data associated with a specific region; and transmitting, via a communication network, the risk assessment to a receiving entity and wherein the risk assessment is used to continuously train the adaptive risk model is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Brini et al. (US 11,798,023 B2) discloses a computer implemented system that implements a Global Withholding Tax Engine, wherein the computer implemented system comprises systems to facilitate the execution of transactions by applying the appropriate tax amounts to the final purchase price and/or remitting the collected tax amounts to the appropriate jurisdictions; a subscriber-based membership system where content creators can register and set up creator accounts with a subscription platform using their respective devices; each content creator creates a page on a website hosted by server of the subscription platform and inputs relevant information; content creators input information associated with and/or relevant to content creator via a subscription component of the subscriber platform; and content creators input information associated with and/or relevant to content creators such as preferred currency, identification of applicable tax jurisdiction and/or other information but does not disclose nor render obvious storage mechanism that stores and manage withholding tax guidelines for multiple global jurisdictions and an engine comprising a computer processor coupled to the input, the interactive user interface and the storage mechanism, the computer processor further configured to perform a method that includes the steps of: dynamically adjusting a set of required data elements based on an input attribute relating to the one or more jurisdictions, wherein the input attribute is retrieved from the one or more payment instructions; determining, via a global withholding tax processor, whether the set of required data elements specific to a region has been received; based on the set of required data elements, generating, via the global withholding tax processor, a withholding tax rate and type that is in compliance with the one or more jurisdictions; automatically applying, via the global withholding tax processor, the withholding tax rate and type to the one or more payment instructions; determining, via a liability processor, a risk assessment for the withholding tax rate and type wherein the risk assessment is generated using an adaptive risk model based on tagged historical data associated with a specific region; and transmitting, via the communication network, the risk assessment to a receiving entity and wherein the risk assessment is used to continuously train the adaptive risk model.
Joseph (US 11,727,067 B2) teaches a storage mechanism that stores and manages a tax rules database including a plurality of rules stored on a second data storage device ;multi-national organization data, e.g. , entity data, stored on a first data storage device; and determining, prior to a subsequent execution of a tax document preparation workflow, a change in multi-national organization data or rules data; in response to determining the change, automatically altering a tax document preparation workflow based on the change but does not teach nor render obvious withholding tax guidelines for multiple global jurisdictions; determining, via a global withholding tax processor, whether the set of required data elements specific to a region has been received; based on the set of required data elements, generating, via the global withholding tax processor, a withholding tax rate and type that is in compliance with the one or more jurisdictions; automatically applying, via the global withholding tax processor, the withholding tax rate and type to the one or more payment instructions; determining, via a liability processor, a risk assessment for the withholding tax rate and type wherein the risk assessment is generated using an adaptive risk model based on tagged historical data associated with a specific region; and transmitting, via the communication network, the risk assessment to a receiving entity and wherein the risk assessment is used to continuously train the adaptive risk model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Joseph et al. discloses an automated international tax planning system. Wilson et al. discloses an accounts payable tax rules processing system where an accounts payable system processing invoices and reduced the risk of fraud or improper payments with validation of transaction based taxes, including sales tax, consumers use tax and international VAT.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights