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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 13, 2026 and July 16, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection prepared in response to the applicant’s amendments filed on 06/23/2026.
Claims 11-13, 15-17, 20-21 and 23-30 are amended.
Claims 31-34 are new.
Claims 11-34 are pending.
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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 11-29 and 31-34 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 30 is directed to a 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 30, 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:
instantiating a first dashboard configuration for transmission over a network for display on a user interface associated with a user device, the first dashboard configuration displaying a prompt for a user to provide information about an election of a multiplier of an asset by an owner of the asset;
instantiate a second dashboard configuration for transmission over the network for display on the user interface, the second dashboard configuration including displaying: an inquiry configured based on a setting stored in a database; an information entry field configured to constrain input based on the setting;
determining, based on at least one attribute associated with the owner, the input responsive to the inquiry, and one or more pre-configured rules, whether a condition is satisfied;
responsive to determining that the condition is satisfied, instantiating a third dashboard configuration including election settings;
validating an election input against the election setting;
calculating an election result summary data element based on the election input; and
instantiating a fourth dashboard configuration displaying the election result summary data element.
Claim 30, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for providing and evaluating information about an asset related event. The claim achieves this by displaying information about the event, settings and election settings, determining condition satisfaction based on stored rules and user input, validating user’s input against stored settings, calculating election results and conditionally displaying such results. Claim 11 is significantly similar to claim 30. As such claim 11 also recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “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 user interface, a first dashboard configuration, a second dashboard configuration, a third dashboard configuration and a database 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 12-29 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 12-29 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 12 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the one or more settings configures the inquiry and includes at least one of: an inquiry content, a plurality of selectable response options, or one or more selectable order options.
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, if any, 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 13 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the second dashboard configuration is instantiated upon a request to proceed from another dashboard configuration to the second dashboard configuration.
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 and another 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.
Claim 14 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the information about the event includes at least one of: a price per share in a tender offer, a condition about a tender offer, a date associated with a tender offer, a procedure for tendering a share, a background of a tender offer, and a supporting document for a tender offer.
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, if any, 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 15 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the second dashboard configuration occurs only upon completion of a required field in the first dashboard configuration
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 first dashboard configuration and a second 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.
Claim 16 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the instructions further include enabling navigation between at least two of the dashboard configurations while maintaining condition-based access control to the third dashboard configuration.
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 dashboard configurations and a third 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.
Claim 17 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the instructions further include, sending a request to suppress display of the first dashboard configuration following instantiation of the second dashboard configuration.
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 first dashboard configuration and a second 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.
Claim 18 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
at least two of the first dashboard configuration, the second dashboard configuration, or the third dashboard configuration are displayed simultaneously.
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 first dashboard configuration, a second dashboard configuration and a third 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.
Claim 19 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the user interface further includes a navigation bar.
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 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 20 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a number of electable response options for the inquiry is automatically generated based on the setting.
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, if any, 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 21 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the one or more settings further includes a selectable action triggered by a predefined selection, the selectable action affecting the determination of whether the condition is satisfied.
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, if any, 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 22 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the one or more settings further includes a complex decision tree, wherein the complex decision tree is configured to trigger a conditional inquiry based on a selected response to an earlier inquiry.
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, if any, 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 23 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the complex decision tree is further configured based on a rule selected from the one or more pre-configured rules.
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, if any, 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 24 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the one or more election settings defines at least one constraint including at least one of: an expiration date, an option for a data type in the election, an option for an increment in the election, or an option for a range in the election.
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, if any, 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 25 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the expiration date restricts acceptance of the election input after the expiration date.
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, if any, 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 26 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the election setting defines a permissible input parameter used to constrain the election input.
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, if any, 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 27 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the input parameter includes one of an integer, a range, a percentage, or a quantity.
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, if any, 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 28 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the fourth dashboard configuration is instantiated only after validating the election input.
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 fourth 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.
Claim 29 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a fifth dashboard configuration is instantiated to define a presentation setting controlling an order of displaying at least one dashboard configuration.
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 element of a fifth dashboard configuration fails 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 31 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the processor is further configured to instantiate a second inquiry only upon detecting that a response to a first inquiry satisfies a predefined condition.
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 element of a processor fails 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 32 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the one or more pre-configured rules define a workflow path that enables or disables instantiation of at least one dashboard configuration.
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 element of at least one dashboard configuration fails 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 33 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the processor prevents instantiation of the third dashboard configuration when the owner selects a non-participation option.
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 element of a processor and the third dashboard configuration fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools 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 34 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the determination of the condition is based on a combination of ownership of the asset and verification of user credentials.
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, if any, fails 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 11-13, 18-19, 21, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 20030061092 A1) in view of Krieger (US 20220121767 A1).
Regarding claim 11 and 30, Dutta discloses:
instantiate a first dashboard configuration for transmission over a network for display on a user interface associated with a user device, (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. ¶0053, 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.)
instantiate a second dashboard configuration for transmission over the network for display on the user interface, (Dutta ¶0041, 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.)
responsive to the determination, instantiate a third dashboard configuration for transmission over the network provide for display on the user interface, (¶0055, 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.)
responsive to the election input, validate the election input against the election setting; responsive to validating the election input, calculate an election result summary data element influenced by at least one chosen from the set of: the information about the election, the multiplier, and the election input; and (¶0043, For example, the user may choose to view the number of votes cast for various candidates in an election from voters who are of African descent. Alternatively, the user may choose to have an aggregate number of votes cast by voters that are male and are between the ages of 20 and 25 be displayed. Any combination of voter categories may be combined to generate a display of the voting patterns of voters that fall into these categories. ¶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. Such a display may include a display for each category chosen by the user as well as a display for a combination of the categories. That is, if a user selects to view votes cast by voters that are male and in the age range of 20-25, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are male may be displayed, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are 20-25 may be displayed, and a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are both male and 20-25 may alternatively, or in addition, be displayed. ¶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. ¶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. ¶0075, In either case, the voter database is searched for voters matching the designated voter categories according to the grouping defined by the operands, or alternatively for voters matching a voter profile of the user (step 840).)
responsive to validating the election input, instantiate a fourth dashboard configuration for transmission over the network for display on the user interface, (¶0056, The results are returned to the controller 410 which then instructs the voter interface generation system 440 to generate one or more interfaces through which the results may be displayed.)
Although, Dutta does not explicitly teach “the first dashboard configuration displaying a prompt for a user to provide information about an election of a multiplier of an asset by an owner of the asset”, “the second dashboard configuration displaying an inquiry configured based on a setting stored in a database, and an information entry field configured to constrain, to a permissible input parameter, an input responsive to the inquiry, based on the setting”, “the third dashboard configuration displaying: an election inquiry constrained by an election setting that defines constraints on the election including at least one chosen from the set of: a data type of the input, an increment, a permitted range for the multiplier, or a quantity associated with the asset an election information entry field configured to constrain, to a permissible election input parameter, an election input responsive to the election inquiry, based on the election setting” and “the fourth dashboard configuration displaying the election result summary data element”, Dutta teaches displaying information and user prompts in different dashboards. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to that the disclosed functionality of Dutta’s dashboards can be use to display any known type of information and user prompts in gathering information. Additionally, the particular type of information displayed or entered does not affect the any of the positively recited steps in the claim, as those steps are performed in the same manner regardless of the specific data involved. Further, the reference to a first display, a second display, a third display, etc. merely identify the displays and describe their arrangement or order.
Dutta further discloses:
a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations to: (Dutta ¶0024, Data processing system 200 may be a symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) system including a plurality of processors 202 and 204 connected to system bus 206. Alternatively, a single processor system may be employed. Also connected to system bus 206 is memory controller/cache 208, which provides an interface to local memory 209. ¶0029, Processor 302 and main memory 304 are connected to PCI local bus 306 through PCI bridge 308.)
Dutta does not disclose, however Krieger teaches:
determine, based on at least one attribute associated with the owner, the input responsive to the inquiry, and one or more pre-configured rules stored in the database, whether the owner satisfies a condition for accessing an election interface; (¶0020, In some embodiments, the policy server curates and presents a data-set to a user, based on one or more credentials of the user. For example, a set of access policies may be associated with each row or column of a data-set, where in the access policies define access credentials required to receive access to contains of corresponding rows or columns. Upon receiving a request to access a data-set from a user, the policy service curate and presents a filtered data-set to the user based on considerations that include credentials of the user and access policies corresponding to each row or column of the data-set. In some embodiments, the credentials of the user are stored within a memory location associated with the user, locally at the policy service to quickly and efficiently determine access privileges of a particular user based on an associated user identifier or other request attributes of the request to access the data-set”. ¶0025, A user wishing to access data within the data-set transmits an access request (e.g. read or write) to the policy service, wherein the request includes an identification of one or more cells (or rows or columns) of the data-set. In response to receiving the access request , the policy service retrieves credentials associated with the user, wherein the credentials comprise privileges assigned to the user, a security clearance assigned to the user, as well as user attributes and/or device attributes associated with the user. The policy service filters the data-set based on the credentials of the user, and provides the user access to the filtered data-set. In some embodiments, the policy service may generate and cause display of a presentation of the filtered data-set at the device of the user, wherein the presentation of the filtered data-set comprises a redacted view of some of the contents of the rows and columns of the data-set.
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 disclosure of Dutta with Krieger‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure that only authorized users have access to the election interface.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dutta and Krieger further discloses:
the one or more settings configures the inquiry and includes at least one of: an inquiry content, a plurality of selectable response options, or one or more selectable order options. (Dutta ¶0055, 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. ¶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.)
Further, the claimed limitation “…configures the inquiry and includes at least one of: an inquiry content, a plurality of selectable response options, or one or more selectable order options” only describe characteristics of the one or more settings which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dutta and Krieger further discloses:
the second dashboard configuration is instantiated upon a request to proceed from another dashboard configuration to the second dashboard configuration. (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.)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dutta and Krieger further discloses:
at least two of the first dashboard configuration, the second dashboard configuration, or the third dashboard configuration are displayed simultaneously. (¶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. Such a display may include a display for each category chosen by the user as well as a display for a combination of the categories. That is, if a user selects to view votes cast by voters that are male and in the age range of 20-25, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are male may be displayed, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are 20-25 may be displayed, and a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are both male and 20-25 may alternatively, or in addition, be displayed.)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dutta and Krieger further discloses:
the user interface further includes a navigation bar. (Dutta Fig. 6A & 6B, The interfaces show a navigation bar with option for back, forward, stop, refresh, home, search, favorites, history and mail. )
Further, the claimed limitation “…includes a navigation bar” only describe characteristics of the user interface which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Dutta and Krieger further discloses:
the one or more settings further includes a selectable action triggered by a predefined selection, the selectable action affecting the determination of whether the condition is satisfied. (Dutta ¶0007, Through the present invention, the voter or potential voter may select a subject, an individual voter, one or more groups of voters, a geographical voter area, voting information for various times, and the like. In response to such a selection, voting information for the corresponding selection is provided to the voter. ¶0040, The present invention provides a mechanism through which these various demographic categories and groupings may be selected by a user to thereby obtain information about the voting patterns of members of the category or grouping. ¶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. Such a display may include a display for each category chosen by the user as well as a display for a combination of the categories. That is, if a user selects to view votes cast by voters that are male and in the age range of 20-25, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are male may be displayed, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are 20-25 may be displayed, and a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are both male and 20-25 may alternatively, or in addition, be displayed. ¶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. The results are returned to the controller 410 which then instructs the voter interface generation system 440 to generate one or more interfaces through which the results may be displayed. ¶0067, Moreover, the voting interface of FIG. 6B may include an option 665 to search for voter profiles that are similar to the present user's voter profile. By selecting this option 665, the voter database is searched for voters meeting a minimum requirement of similarity with the present user's voter profile and the results accumulated for display to the user.)
Further, the claimed limitation “…includes a selectable action triggered by a predefined selection, the selectable action affecting the determination of whether the condition is satisfied” only describe characteristics of the one or more settings which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Dutta and Krieger further disclose:
the fourth dashboard configuration is instantiated only after validating the election input. ((¶0043, For example, the user may choose to view the number of votes cast for various candidates in an election from voters who are of African descent. Alternatively, the user may choose to have an aggregate number of votes cast by voters that are male and are between the ages of 20 and 25 be displayed. Any combination of voter categories may be combined to generate a display of the voting patterns of voters that fall into these categories. ¶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. Such a display may include a display for each category chosen by the user as well as a display for a combination of the categories. That is, if a user selects to view votes cast by voters that are male and in the age range of 20-25, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are male may be displayed, a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are 20-25 may be displayed, and a window displaying the votes cast by voters that are both male and 20-25 may alternatively, or in addition, be displayed. ¶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. The results are returned to the controller 410 which then instructs the voter interface generation system 440 to generate one or more interfaces through which the results may be displayed.)
Claims 14, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Gordon (US 11,164,254 B1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Gordon teaches:
the information about the event includes at least one of: a price per share in a tender offer, a condition about a tender offer, a date associated with a tender offer, a procedure for tendering a share, a background of a tender offer, and a supporting document for a tender offer. (Gordon col 59 lines 24-36, FIGS. 92-93 are example GUIs related to aggregate sales. An aggregate sale provides an issuer the ability to execute a ‘cap table cleanup’ or tender offer. Specifically, an aggregate sale creates a proxy contract to sell an aggregate set of owner's interests in the issuer's entity either to a separate entity (or plurality of entities) or to be purchased by the issuer itself. A ‘cap table cleanup’ is the process of selling small interest in the company (normally seed or first round investor's interest) to a larger, more sophisticated entity that assists the issuer with future fund raising or access to customers. A tender offer is when an issuer believes that the market price for its shares is below value, and wants to buy back shares from at least one existing owner's interest. col 59 lines 62-67 & col 60 lines 1-7, FIG. 93 illustrates an Aggregate Sale GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. An Aggregate Sale is one where the issuer acts as a proxy to sell shares on their shareholder's behalf as discussed above. The Aggregate Sale GUI is operable to display a share class drop down menu, shareholder information, a total number of shareholders, a total number of shares, an ask price per share, a total sale amount, an expiration date, a representation check box, a cancel GUI button, and a sell GUI button. The shareholder information includes a name, a number of shares, a number of selected shares, an affiliate status, and/or a holding period commencement date for each shareholder.)
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 Krieger with Gordon‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve completeness and accuracy of stored event information.
Further, the claimed limitation “…includes at least one of: a price per share in a tender offer, a condition about a tender offer, a date associated with a tender offer, a procedure for tendering a share, a background of a tender offer, and a supporting document for a tender offer” only describe characteristics of the information which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Gordon teaches:
a number of selectable response options for the inquiry is automatically generated based on the setting. (Gordon col 63 lines 24-38, In a preferred embodiment, a poll question or set of poll questions contains at least one templated item. Specifically, a templated item is unique information stored about an audience member in the platform. As questions 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 poll question that is provided to the audience member. Meaning, each audience member receives a unique question as their ownership and profile data in the platform is unique when the at least one templated item is included.)
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 Krieger with Gordon‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to standardize inputs and reduce errors.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein a number of selectable response options for the inquiry is automatically generated based on the setting.” only describe characteristics of the selectable response options for the inquiry which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Gordon teaches:
the one or more election settings defines at least one constraint including: an expiration date, an option for a data type in the election, an option for an increment in the election, or an option for a range in the election. (Gordon col 64 lines 64-67 & col 65 lines 1-9, FIG. 107 illustrates a Poll Shareholders GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The Poll Shareholders GUI includes, but is not limited to, a poll description, an expiration date input field, and an approval requirement GUI drop-down box containing a plurality of selectable approval requirement options. In addition, the Poll Shareholders GUI further includes, but is not limited to, a cancel GUI button and/or a send poll GUI button. The cancel GUI button cancels an initiated shareholder poll and closes the Poll Shareholders GUI. The send poll GUI button is operable to initiate a poll with constraints from the expiration date input filed and/or the approval requirements GUI drop-down box. Col 70 lines 36-49, FIG. 129 illustrates a Make Bid GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to another embodiment of the present invention. The Make Bid GUI contains a plurality of investor input fields including, but not limited to, a bid number of shares input field, a bid price per share input field, and/or an expiration date input field. The bid number of shares input field enables an investor to input a specific number of shares for which the investor wants to place a bid. The bid price per share input field enables an investor to input a specific price per share that the investor wants associated with a number of desired shares. The platform is operable to set a minimum and/or maximum bid price per share. Advantageously, this allows company administrators to ensure that shares are not underpriced and/or overpriced.)
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 Krieger with Gordon‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve reliability and usability of the system.
Further, the claimed limitation “…defines at least one constraint including: an expiration date, an option for a data type in the election, an option for an increment in the election, or an option for a range in the election” only describe characteristics of the selectable response options for the inquiry which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Ethier (US 8977951 B2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Ethier teaches:
instantiating the second dashboard configuration occurs only upon completion of a required field in the first dashboard configuration. (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.)
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 Krieger with Ethier‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure complete and valid data before moving to the next dashboard.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Ethier teaches:
the one or more pre-configured rules define a workflow path that enables or disables instantiation of at least one dashboard configuration. (col 3 lines 30-44, The wizard generating process provides the capability to modify the original form field layout or presentation sequence, if necessary. The wizard generating process can also identify and propagate any validation rules associated with the electronic form to the wizard panel. For example, one page of an electronic form may require that all the fields be filled in before continuing to the next page of the electronic form. The wizard generating process also provides the capability of adding additional navigation rules to the wizard panel. That is, the wizard generating process imports any validation rules from the paper form, and also allows a developer the means to add additional navigation rules. The navigation rules can be, for example, requiring a user to fill in all the form fields on the wizard panel before advancing to the next panel. col 13 lines 33-38, The sequence of wizard panels can be modified by a user 108 or by policies 150 (i.e., validation rules) associated with the wizard panels. Thus, information associated with one object 125-N can trigger a change in the sequence of the delivery of a wizard panel 135-1 (i.e., an alternative wizard panel 135) to the user 108. col 15 lines 25-41, Alternatively, in step 222, the wizard generating process 140-2 associates at least one panel policy 150 with the panel. The wizard generating process 140-2 obtains policies 150 from the electronic form 120 and applies those policies 150 to the wizard panels that are generated by the wizard generating process 140-2. In an example embodiment, the wizard generating process 140-2 provides policies 150 in the form of field based navigation rules. For example, a wizard panel 135-1 has an object 125-1, such as a field form. An evaluation condition is applied to that field form, such as `equals, "greater than", "less than", etc. A value determines the threshold for the evaluation condition, for example "greater than five". The navigation rule identifies a subsequent wizard panel 135-1 to be displayed if the evaluation condition is met. The navigation rule can be, for example, if the user 108 enters a value greater than five in a particular field form, display a certain 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 and Krieger with Ethier’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to provide a configurable mechanism for controlling the display of the dashboard accordingly with a condition.
Further, the claimed limitation “the one or more pre-configured rules define a workflow path that enables or disables instantiation of at least one dashboard configuration.” only describe characteristics of the one or more pre-configured rules which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Kim (US 20190235712 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Kim teaches:
the instructions further include enabling navigation between at least two of the dashboard configurations while maintaining condition-based access control to the third dashboard configuration (Kim ¶0047, In some embodiments, a user may want to switch to a different dashboard 110. In some embodiments, a user may switch to a different dashboard 110 by activating switcher 302. In some embodiments, a user may activate switcher 302 by using a user input gesture (e.g., swiping down from the top of the screen with their finger). In some other embodiments, a user may activate switcher 302 by clicking a user interface element in the selected dashboard 110. As would be appreciated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, a user may activate switcher 302 using various other mechanisms. ¶0048, In some embodiments, switcher 302 may display a collection dashboards 110 that the user can switch between. In some embodiments, the collection may include dashboards 110 that have been previously opened, or never opened. In some embodiments, switcher 302 may be a header that overlays a portion of the currently selected dashboard 110. This may enable a user to simultaneously see the currently selected dashboard 110 when switching. Because switcher 302 can be activated while within the currently selected dashboard 110, a user can navigate to another dashboard 110 without having to first close the currently selected dashboard 110. This may improve user experience because there may not be a dramatic context change when switching between dashboards 110.)
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 Krieger with Kim’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve usability and system clarity.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Kim teaches:
the instructions further include sending a request to suppress display of the first dashboard configuration following instantiation of the second dashboard configuration. (abstract, The embodiment receives a selection for a second dashboard of the application. The embodiment stores a first data set and a first data state of the first dashboard in a cache. The embodiment removes the first dashboard from memory. The embodiment loads a second dashboard of the application into memory based on the selection. ¶0060, In 408, application 108 removes the currently selected dashboard 110 from memory in response to receiving the user selection for the second dashboard 110. For example, application 108 removes dashboard instance data 206 associated with the currently selected dashboard 110 from memory.)
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 Krieger with Kim‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve usability and system clarity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Beskrovny (US 20130091541 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Beskrovny teaches:
the one or more settings further includes a complex decision tree, wherein the complex decision tree is configured to trigger a conditional inquiry based on a selected response to an earlier inquiry. (Beskrovny ¶0041, Settings 328 can include, but is not limited to, token generator 322 settings, runtime engine 324 options, profiler 326 parameters, and the like. In one instance, settings 328 can include security policy 342 options, decision tree 332 settings, and the like. Setting 328 can be manually and/or automatically determined. In one instance, setting 328 can be configured via interface 334.)
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 Krieger with Beskrovny‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve efficiency on the data collection process.
Further, the claimed limitation “…includes a complex decision tree,” only describe characteristics of the one or more settings which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Furthermore, the limitation “configured to…” in “wherein the complex decision tree is configured to trigger a conditional inquiry based on a selected response to an earlier inquiry” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta, Krieger and Beskrovny as applied to claim 22 above in view of Fondekar (US 20150379415 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Dutta, Krieger and Beskrovny do not disclose, however Fondekar teaches:
the complex decision tree is further configured based on a rule selected from the one or more pre- configured rules. (Fondekar abstract, The method further comprises creating a decision tree or a decision table based upon the input data and pre-defined rules. ¶0019, Based on the input data and pre-defined rules, the system 102 may create a decision tree or a decision table. The system 102 may create the decision tree by using a parent node and a child node. The parent node and the child node may comprise a first question and a second question respectively presented to the user/cardholder. Based on the response for the first question, the system 102 may present the second question to the user/cardholder. The system 102 may create the decision table comprising a plurality of criteria/conditions being presented to the user. For each criteria/condition, a conditional response is received from the user, and the conditional response indicates a criteria/condition being satisfied.)
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, Krieger and Beskrovny with Fondekar’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to implement predetermine logic conditions that control which subsequent inquiries are presented.
Furthermore, the limitation “configured to…” in “the complex decision tree is further configured based on a rule selected from the one or more pre- configured rules.” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is 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.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Shrestha (US 20240232313 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Shrestha teaches:
the expiration date restricts acceptance of the election input after the expiration date. (¶0072, Inputs corresponding to one or more restrictions and/or notes may be received at the first GUI as illustrated at 412 and 414. In some embodiments, a set of restrictions (e.g., transaction value, expiration date, single versus multiple uses of a token-shown as scans, etc.) may be input using the first GUI. In some embodiments, a user may input a restriction to limit the authorized transaction value. For example, the first GUI may be used to limit the transaction value to $300, thus, if a transaction that exceeds $300 is attempted, the transaction value restriction may prevent the completion of the transaction using the payment method of the first user account. In some embodiments, the one or more restrictions may include an expiration date. inputs received at the first GUI may indicate an expiration date on which the purchase authorization may no longer enable transactions to be completed using the payment method. For example, the first GUI may be used to input an expiration date that is ten days out from the current date, thus, if a purchase is attempted eleven days out from the current date, the expiration date restriction may prevent the complete of the transaction. In some embodiments, a maximum and/or minimum time range may be set for the expiration date restriction to apply, such that a user may be prevented from inputting an expiration date that exceeds the time range limit. For example, a time range of a week may be set, such that if a user attempts to input an expiration date more than a week out, the first GUI will prevent the entry of said input. In some embodiments, the first GUI may further be configured to receive inputs indicating additional information, such as types of items that may be purchased using the purchase authorization, the name of the project associated with the purchase authorization, an allowed location for a purchase, other conditions, etc.)
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 Krieger with Sheresta‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to control the time during which user votes may be submitted.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the expiration date restricts acceptance of the election input after the expiration date.” only describe characteristics of the expiration date which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Imai (US 20050164198 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Imai teaches:
the election setting defines a permissible input parameter used to constrain the election input. (¶0299, Further, when the user selects the restriction parameter setting screen link button MBB-8 or MCC-8 on the column parameter setting screen (1) or the column parameter setting screen (2), respectively, using the input device 112, the search condition setting unit 1102c displays a restriction parameter setting screen shown in FIG. 26. ¶0300, FIG. 26 depicts one example of the restriction parameter setting screen output to the output device 1114 by the processing performed by the search condition setting unit 1102c. As shown in FIG. 26, the restriction parameter setting screen includes an input area MDD-1 for inputting an upper limit of the number of search results and an upper limit of the number of mutants, an input area MDD-2 for inputting an ignored oligopeptide in the target protein and a start position, an input area MDD-3 for inputting an ignored mutant, an ignored protein, and a protein and a start position, an input area MDD-4 for inputting the external analysis program, and 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 Krieger with Imai‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure consistency on the input data.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the election setting defines a permissible input parameter used to constrain the election input” only describe characteristics of the election setting which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta, Krieger and Imai as applied to claim 26 above in view of Watanabe (US 20240420694 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Dutta, Krieger and Imai do not disclose, however Watanabe teaches:
the input parameter includes one of an integer, a range, a percentage, or a quantity. (Watanabe ¶0045, In a case of “Numerical values”, furthermore, the base thereof (decimal, hexadecimal, or the like) may be specified; and, in a case of decimal, the number of digits in the integer part thereof (range may be specified), the number of digits in the decimal part thereof, etc. may be specified. ¶0061, For example, the range selection unit 5 provides a user interface for selecting a range for setting an input format. The range selection unit 5 may use the feature of an existing application, which displays forms, or may use another method. ¶0044, “Input format” represents input format input format estimated by the format estimation unit 6. Note that the input sequence 3a includes an input format field in which the estimated input format can be input, and the input format estimated by the format estimation unit 6 is input in the input format field. Additionally, the input format specifies the format of the value to be input in the input field of the input target item.
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, Krieger and Imai with Watanabe’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure valid and consistent responses.
Further, the claimed limitation “…includes one of an integer, a range, a percentage, or a quantity” only describe characteristics of the input parameter which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Krupnik (US 20120015686 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Krupnik teaches:
a fifth dashboard configuration is instantiated (Krupnik ¶0041, Consistent with some embodiments, the user interface module 128, in conjunction with various elements of the operating system 122, facilitates the presentation of various interfaces of a graphical user interface. More specifically, the user interface module 128 facilitates the presentation of one or more interfaces that enable the configuration of one or more settings for various user controls present on a controller housing or integrated mobile computing device. Additionally, the user interface module facilitates the presentation of one or more interfaces used in the operation of one or more model vehicles.)
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 Krieger with Krupnik’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to present the user with different configuration options for user interaction and system control.
Further, the claimed limitation “to…” in “a fifth dashboard configuration is instantiated to define a presentation setting controlling an order of displaying at least one dashboard configuration” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is 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.
Claims 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Cheesman (US 20190073348 A1).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Cheesman teaches:
the processor is further configured to instantiate a second inquiry only upon detecting that a response to a first inquiry satisfies a predefined condition (Cheesman ¶0103, In one or more embodiments, the survey system also identifies conditional questions that are dependent on responses to one or more other questions. In particular, displaying a question can be dependent on the respondent selecting a specific answer from another question. For example, the survey system can determine that a question is a conditional question based on text indicating that the question is conditional. In another example, the survey system can infer a conditional question based on the presence of an object or text associated with another question. To illustrate, the survey system can infer a conditional question based on the presence of a text line or text box next to a specific answer in another question. Accordingly, the survey system can use a variety of image and/or text processing techniques to detect a conditional question. ¶0104, FIG. 3F illustrates a conditional question 334 that is dependent on the respondent's response to the first question 328 of FIG. 3E. For instance, the survey system can infer the conditional question 334 based on the context of the general prompt 326 and the presence of a text box in the field corresponding to the first question 328 within the image. If the respondent answers “Yes” to the first question 328, the response triggers the display of the conditional question 334 that requests the relationship of the family member with high blood pressure. If the respondent answers “No” to the first question 328, the survey system can cause the client application 302 to skip the conditional question 334, such that the client application 302 does not display the conditional question 334 to the respondent and proceeds with the next question from the survey. After the respondent enters a response to the conditional question 334, the respondent can select the continue option 320 and proceed with the rest of the survey (or complete the survey if there are no more unanswered questions).
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 Krieger with Cheesman’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to selectively display the inquiry according to the user input.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Cheesman teaches:
the processor prevents instantiation of the third dashboard configuration when the owner selects a non-participation option. (¶0104, If the respondent answers “No” to the first question 328, the survey system can cause the client application 302 to skip the conditional question 334, such that the client application 302 does not display the conditional question 334 to the respondent and proceeds with the next question from the survey.)
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 Krieger with Cheesman’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to prevent the display of information that is not applicable to the user/event.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta and Krieger as applied to claim 11 above in view of Engels (US 20150134552 A1).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Dutta and Krieger do not disclose, however Engels teaches:
the determination of the condition is based on a combination of ownership of the asset and verification of user credentials. (¶0177, At step 904, a user may login to the authentication system using the authentication application. The login may verify that a user is a registered user of the system. The login may request user data such as a user ID, a password, and any suitable additional identifying information such as a device ID associated with the login request. When the authentication application receives the user credentials for the first user, the user credentials may be sent to the authentication system for comparison and verification with existing information stored in the authentication system. Upon verifying the first user credentials based on the information in the authentication system, the authentication system may return an authentication to the authentication application for the first user. ¶0180, At step 908, the system may determine if a current owner exists for the item and if the current owner is the first user attempting to transfer the ownership. For example, the authentication system may retrieve the ownership records or ownership pedigree for the item to determine if the current owner is unassigned or comprises an identifier for a registered user. If a current owner is not identified for the item, the process may proceed to step 910 and end. When an owner is identified, the authentication system may verify that the identification of the owner in the ownership records matches the first user credentials for the user providing the owner release request. If the current owner identified in the records does not match the identification of the first user, the process 900 may proceed to step 910 and end. An optional message may then be sent to the owner identified in the records or to a third party to indicate that another user is attempting to transfer the ownership of the item.)
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 Krieger with Engels’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to prevent unauthorized access to the election by unauthorized users.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents three assertions, i.e., “the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2, Prong 1”, “the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2” and “the claims, as a whole, recite “significantly more” than any alleged abstract idea under step 2B”. The basis of these assertions are based on the applicant’s argument on pages 11-18.
First, in regards to the assertion that “the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2, Prong 1”, the applicant further asserts that the office over simplifies the claims to generic functions which abstracts away the particular limitations that define how the claimed system actually operates and that “the claims define a mechanism in which information is evaluated and used to control availability of certain system functionalities”. The examiner finds these assertions not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claim, when evaluated as a whole, recite providing information, collecting information, evaluating such information based on pre stored rules and using that evaluation to determine if information can be display to the user, which represents the use of generic computer components to implement the claimed rules and does not constitute an improvement upon any of the computer components as asserted by the applicant. Further, the applicant assert that “the classification of the claims as certain methods of organizing human activity is not supported by the claim language and rather the claims recite a particular computer implemented control process that governs system behavior based on evaluated rules.” The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that the claim remain directed to an abstract idea, specifically directed toward certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions). The abstract idea described in the claim belongs to commercial or legal interactions because it focus on providing, collecting and evaluating information for a shareholder election. Merely implementing a set of rules on a computer does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. 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. Moreover, the applicant asserts that “the office does not address that the claims require the system to evaluate conditions using stored rules and enforce those conditions by presenting specific dashboard configurations based on claimed conditions”. The examiner also finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. Under step 2a prong one, the claim is evaluated as a whole to determine whether it recites an abstract idea. Evaluating information according to pre-defined rules and using the result to make a determination merely constitutes evaluating information and applying rules and does not constitute an improvement to a technology.
Second, regarding the applicant assertion that “the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2”. The applicant further assert that “the amended claims define a functional relationship between rule evaluation and system behavior, not merely the use of a computer to display or store information” and “the user interface is not simply presenting information; it is being conditionally generated or with held based on computational evaluation”. The examiner finds these assertions not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond utilizing generic computer components to apply the abstract idea. The conditional generation of a dashboard based on the result of an evaluation of the received information against pre-defined rules does not constitute an improvement to the computer technology and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, regarding the applicant assertion that “the claims, as a whole, recite “significantly more” than any alleged abstract idea under step 2B”. The applicant further asserts that “the office has not provided evidence that the claimed combination, particularly the use of databased-stored rules to control instantiation of dashboard configurations, is well-understood, routine or conventional”. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. 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.
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. § 102
Claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102 in the previous non-final action dated 03/24/2026 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090019383 A1 to Riley discloses: A user interface for a personal information manager is disclosed. The user interface disclosed allows an information worker to set up, manage, and use different views of different user modules. The user interface also combines personal and business data from a plurality of different systems in a manner that allows information workers to use a single consistent interface to access, organize, and modify business information such as contacts, tasks, files, etc.
US 7954064 B2 to Forstall discloses: Systems, methods, computer-readable mediums, user interfaces and other implementations are disclosed for organizing, managing and presenting widgets in display areas associated with multiple dashboard environments. In some implementations, a first display area associated with a first dashboard environment is configured for displaying at least one widget from a first set of widgets. A second display area associated with a second dashboard environment is configured for displaying at least one widget from a second set of widgets.
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
