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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 09/24/2025.
Claims 1, 11 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 12-13 and 22-23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4- 11, 14-21, and 24-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
The IDS received on 06/03/2025 and 11/05/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 4- 11, 14-21, and 24-30 are presented for examination.
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, 4- 11, 14-21, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-30 are directed to a system which are statutory classes of invention.
Nevertheless, independent claim 1 is directed in part to an abstract idea. The claims are drawn to commercial or legal interactions (under certain methods of organizing human activity), or practice management with an accounting system, in this case. The independent claims recite the receiving, configure, receive, determine, and confirm steps which are done by using generic computing components. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it falls within the “Commercial Legal Interactions” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describes the concept of practice management with an accounting system using these additional elements: computing device, processor and memory. These additional elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing device, processor and memory to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1, 4- 11, 14-21, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baker et al. “US 2021/0166330 A1” (Baker).
Regarding Claim 1: A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
interfacing an intermediate platform with a practice management system by configuring a first application program interface on the practice management system to enable interfacing with the intermediate platform (at least see Baker Abstract; Fig. 1; [0007] and [0211]) ;
interfacing the intermediate platform with an accounting system by configuring a second application program interface on the accounting system to enable interfacing with the intermediate platform (at least see Baker Abstract; Fig. 1; [0007] and [0050]);
obtaining, on the intermediate platform, contract information from the practice management system (at least see Baker Abstract; Fig. 2; [0006] and [0046]);
processing the contract information to define a contract type, an initial contract payment and a plurality of anticipated contract payments (at least see Baker Abstract; [0095]-[0098]); and
waterfalling the initial contract payment and the plurality of anticipated contract payments in accordance with GAAP to generate one or more GAAP- adhering journal entries concerning the plurality of anticipated contract payments (at least see Baker Abstract; Figs. 1-2C; [0171]).
Regarding Claim 4: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the practice management system includes: an orthodontics practice management system (at least see Baker [0052]).
Regarding Claim 5: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: providing the one or more GAAP-adhering journal entries to the accounting system (at least see Baker [0040]).
Regarding Claim 6: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein obtaining on the intermediate platform contract information from the practice management system includes: periodically obtaining on the intermediate platform contract information from the practice management system (at least see Baker [0170]).
Regarding Claim 7: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: maintaining a rules database that defines a plurality of contract types and one or more GAAP-adhering waterfalling rules concerning the plurality of contract types (at least see Baker [0148]).
Regarding Claim 8: The computer-implemented method of claim 7 further comprising: accessing the rules database to associate the contract type defined within the contract information with one of the plurality of contract types defined within the rules database, thus defining a identified contract type; obtaining one or more GAAP-adhering waterfalling rules concerning the identified contract type, thus defining one or more identified waterfalling rules; and applying the one or more identified waterfalling rules concerning the identified contract type to the initial contract payment and the plurality of anticipated contract payments to generate the one or more GAAP-adhering journal entries (at least see Baker [0009]).
Regarding Claim 9: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: processing the contract information obtained from the practice management system to remove Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from the contract information (at least see Baker [0006]).
Regarding Claim 10: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising one or more of: effectuating a reconciliation procedure to ensure that changes made within the practice management system are replicated onto the accounting system; and/or effectuating a reconciliation procedure to ensure that changes made within the accounting system are replicated onto the practice management system (at least see Baker [0066]).
Regarding Claims 11-30: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/29/2008 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance:
Argument A:
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 4-11, 14-21,
and 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims will need to be further amendments toward concrete structures and practical application and/or more meaningfully limitations then a juridical exception. The claims limitations is necessarily means that the claims do not merely recite a generic computer. Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims are ineligible.
Argument B:
For reasons that should be clear from the foregoing discussion of Baker, independent
claim 21 patentably distinguishes over Baker at least because Baker does not appear to teach or suggest "waterfalling the initial contract payment and the plurality of anticipated contract payments in accordance with GAAP to generate one or more GAAP-adhering journal entries concerning the plurality of anticipated contract payments", as recited in independent claim 21. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 21 and 24-30 under § 102 as being anticipated by Baker be withdrawn.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Baker mention “[0170] Merely by way of example, in the case that the first user is a CPA, the computing system might autonomously analyze at least one of the extracted transaction data for each individual transaction or the generated one or more tax journal entries, and/or the like, to identify at least one of one or more financial services or one or more tax services that are likely required to be performed for the first entity 125a. The computing system might determine whether the identified at least one of the one or more accounting services or the one or more tax services are currently covered by contract between the CPA and the first entity 125a or whether the identified at least one of the one or more accounting services or the one or more tax services covered by contract between the CPA and the first entity 125a will expire within a predetermined period (e.g., a week, two weeks, a month, two months, a quarter, half a year, or a year, etc.).” Also “[0164] In some embodiments, the computing system might autonomously generate financial statements based at least in part on one or more of the generated transaction-based trial balance or the extracted transaction data; might analyze the generated financial statements to determine whether individual elements of the financial statements are in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) based on factors determined by the CPA firm to develop such an opinion; and might autonomously generate and send an alert notification to the at least one CPA to address matters that will aid the at least one CPA in determining if the financial statements are in compliance with GAAP. “ In this situation Baker is payment process using GAAP with payment and contract payments . Therefore baker meets the scope of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627