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 .
The examiner acknowledges the receipt of the amendment to the specifications on October 31, 2025. Any changes to the specifications have been considered in the examination.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/973,859 filed on 12/09/2024 (Parent Application), which claims the benefit and priority of U.S. provision application no. 63/562,608 filed on 03/07/2024. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP $2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP $2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered 'of record' in the Parent Application are now considered cited or 'of record' in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or 'of record' in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 31, 2025, March 17, 2026 and May 13, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection prepared in response to U.S. Patent Application 19/376,159 filed on
October 31, 2025.
Claims 11-29 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 11-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 11-28 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 29 is directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 29, 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:
determining a user’s eligibility to view an election result associated with an event based on a first attribute;
analyzing the first attribute by comparing the first attribute with a predetermined standard to determine eligibility;
retrieving, from a database, a summary of the election result; upon determining the user is eligible,
provide for display on a user interface, a first dashboard configuration including at least one graphical element illustrating the summary of the election result;
submitting a request to refresh the first dashboard configuration based on updated data; and
displaying, on the first dashboard configuration, results based on the updated data.
Claim 29, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for verifying user eligibility to view election results. The claim achieves this by determining user’s eligibility to view election results based on a first attribute, analyzing the first attribute by comparing it with stored data, retrieving stored election results, displaying the election results to the user upon determining user’s eligibility to view the results, receiving a request to update the election results and displaying the updated results to the user. Claim 11 is significantly similar to claim 29. 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 (i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including controlling user access to voting information (social data) based on eligibility criteria, ) and mental processes groups of abstract ideas.
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 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 12-28 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 12-28 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 event is associated with an asset and involves an election of a multiplier of the asset by an owner of the asset.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 summary of the election results includes a number of owners who participated in the event and a total multiplier of the asset.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 at least one graphical element is further configured to illustrate the total multiplier of the asset.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 at least one graphical element illustrates a current progression and a result of a shareholder tender election.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 at least one graphical element further includes a toggle configured to turn the display of the first dashboard configuration on or off.
The non-bolded additional elements of a first 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 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).
retrieving, from the database, a minimum total multiplier of an asset to be elected by at least one owner of the asset for a tender offer to be valid, wherein the tender offer is conditioned on at least one shareholder tendering a minimum number of shares.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a database 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 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).
if the minimum number of shares is not tendered by an expiration date, the tender offer is closed.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 first dashboard configuration is further configured to display one or more selectable options regarding the tender offer.
The non-bolded additional elements of a first 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 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).
the operations are performed at a predetermined time interval.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 operations further include retrieving a most current voting result and updating the at least one graphical element.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 at least one graphical element is one of a progress bar, a pie chart, or a table.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
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 first dashboard configuration further includes a report document.
The non-bolded additional elements of a first 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 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 first dashboard configuration includes a link to access the report document.
The non-bolded additional elements of a first 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 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 operations further include displaying a second dashboard configuration, the second dashboard configuration displaying an outcome portal.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a second 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 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 second dashboard configuration is configured to use color to display results on the outcome portal.
The non-bolded additional elements of a second 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 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 second dashboard configuration is further configured to display a survey question result.
The non-bolded additional elements of a second 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 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 operations further include activating a graphical element associated with the second dashboard configuration.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a second 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, 15, 19, 21-22, 25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Dutta (US 20030061092 A1).
Regarding claim 11 and 29, Dutta discloses:
determining a user’s eligibility to view an election result associated with an event based on a first attribute; (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. ¶0042, The voting coordinator device verifies that the user is an eligible voter for the selected election, shareholder meeting, or the like, and then presents a voter interface through which the user may cast votes and/or obtain information regarding the voting patterns of other voters.)
analyzing the first attribute by comparing the first attribute with a predetermined standard to determine eligibility; (Dutta ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote. ¶0072, The user is then validated as a registered voter for the selected voting event (step 720). This may also include verifying that the user has not previously submitted a permanent vote through a voter database lookup.)
retrieving, from a database, a summary of the election result; (Dutta ¶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. ¶0036, The voting coordinator device stores information regarding votes and voters in a database, such as storage unit 106 a plurality of remotely located storage devices, or one or more local storage devices. The database preferably includes a listing of registered voters and their personal information, such as their address, telephone number, age, race, gender, and other demographic or voter information. In addition, the database may, after the voter has voted, maintain a record of the vote cast by the voter, whether the vote has been made permanent, and any comments that the voter may have made regarding the vote. This database information is used by the voting coordinator device to provide interfaces to other voters or potential voters when a voter category is selected. ¶0059, FIG. 5 is an exemplary diagram of a voter database entry according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the voter database entry includes a field 510 for a voter identification and fields 520-540 for personal voter information such as name, address, telephone number, and the like. The voter database entry further includes fields 550-590 for entry of voter category information, such as a group identifier (field 550), a gender (field 560), a race (field 570), an age range (field 580), and the like.)
upon determining the user is eligible, provide for display on a user interface, a first dashboard configuration including at least one graphical element illustrating the summary of the election result; (Dutta ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote. ¶0073, Once the user is validated, the user is provided with a voting interface (step 730). Claim 7, providing the requested voter voting information includes outputting the voter voting information in a graphical form on a display device. See fig 6C.)
submitting a request to refresh the first dashboard configuration based on updated data; and displaying, on the first dashboard configuration, results based on the updated data. (Dutta ¶0045, The display of the voter patterns may be statically displayed or may be dynamically displayed. That is, the display may be updated as changes to the database information is made. Thus, for example, if a user chooses to view the votes cast by African American voters, the display may be provided to the user's client device in response to the request from the user. This display may be updated periodically such that changes to the database information are reflected in the display on the user's client device. In this way, the user is kept apprised of the current voter pattern for the selected voter category or categories.)
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.)
Further, the claimed limitation “a first dashboard configuration including at least one graphical element illustrating the summary of the election result” only describes characteristics of the first dashboard configuration, which is stored data, and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, the limitations recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “to…” in “submitting a request to refresh the first dashboard configuration based on updated data” 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
Regarding claim 12, Dutta further discloses:
the event is associated with an asset and involves an election of a multiplier of the asset by an owner of the asset. (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. ¶0042, The voting coordinator device verifies that the user is an eligible voter for the selected election, shareholder meeting, or the like, and then presents a voter interface through which the user may cast votes and/or obtain information regarding the voting patterns of other voters.)
Further, the claimed limitation “the event is associated with an asset and involves an election of a multiplier of the asset by an owner of the asset” only describe characteristics of the event which is 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 15, Dutta further discloses:
the at least one graphical element illustrates a current progression and a result of a shareholder tender election. (Dutta ¶0045, The display of the voter patterns may be statically displayed or may be dynamically displayed. That is, the display may be updated as changes to the database information is made. Thus, for example, if a user chooses to view the votes cast by African American voters, the display may be provided to the user's client device in response to the request from the user. This display may be updated periodically such that changes to the database information are reflected in the display on the user's client device. In this way, the user is kept apprised of the current voter pattern for the selected voter category or categories. ¶0050, Since votes may be changeable during the predetermined time period, the displays of voter patterns may further include an indicator of how many votes are permanent and how many are non-final. Such an indicator may be an indication to a user as to the possible margin of error of the current state in relation to the possible final outcome of the voting as well as an indication of the conviction of the voters to a particular candidate or stance on an issue.)
Further, the claimed limitation “the at least one graphical element illustrates a current progression and a result of a shareholder tender election” only describe characteristics of the at least one graphical element which is 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 19, Dutta further discloses:
the first dashboard configuration is further configured to display one or more selectable options regarding the tender offer. (Dutta ¶0053, 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. ¶0055, The controller 410 then validates the voter identification information provided by the user of the client device based on the voter profile retrieved, if any. Upon validation of the voter identification, the voter interface generation system 440 sends a voter interface to the client device through which the user may select to obtain voter information for various categories and/or groupings of voters. In addition, the voter may select to cast a vote.)
Further, the claimed limitation “configured to…” in “the first dashboard configuration is further configured to display one or more selectable options regarding the tender offer” consists of language disclosing an intended use/result, 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.
Regarding claim 21, Dutta further discloses:
retrieving a most current voting result and updating the at least one graphical element. (Dutta ¶0045, The display of the voter patterns may be statically displayed or may be dynamically displayed. That is, the display may be updated as changes to the database information is made. Thus, for example, if a user chooses to view the votes cast by African American voters, the display may be provided to the user's client device in response to the request from the user. This display may be updated periodically such that changes to the database information are reflected in the display on the user's client device. In this way, the user is kept apprised of the current voter pattern for the selected voter category or categories. ¶0050, Since votes may be changeable during the predetermined time period, the displays of voter patterns may further include an indicator of how many votes are permanent and how many are non-final. Such an indicator may be an indication to a user as to the possible margin of error of the current state in relation to the possible final outcome of the voting as well as an indication of the conviction of the voters to a particular candidate or stance on an issue.)
Regarding claim 22, Dutta further discloses:
the at least one graphical element is one of a progress bar, a pie chart, or a table. (Dutta, Claim 7, providing the requested voter voting information includes outputting the voter voting information in a graphical form on a display device. See fig 6C.)
Further, the claimed limitation “the at least one graphical element is one of a progress bar, a pie chart, or a table” only describe characteristics of the at least one graphical element which is 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 25, Dutta further discloses:
displaying a second dashboard configuration, the second dashboard configuration displaying an outcome portal. (Dutta ¶0069, FIG. 6C is an exemplary diagram of a voting interface for displaying the results of a voter voting pattern search. As shown in FIG. 6C, the voting interface includes one or more windows in which results of the search are displayed. For example, as described above, there may be one or more windows 670-690 illustrating the voting patterns of voters meeting each of the voter categories selected by the user as well as a combination of the voter categories.)
Further, the claimed limitation “the second dashboard configuration displaying an outcome portal” only describe characteristics of the second dashboard configuration which is 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 27, Dutta further discloses:
the second dashboard configuration is further configured to display a survey question result. (col 63 lines 60-67 & col 64 lines 1-7, FIG. 106 illustrates a Poll Results GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The Poll Results GUI is operable to display a name of a poll and/or a corresponding poll description. The Poll Results GUI includes a list containing a plurality of audience members and a list containing a plurality of questions. Each of the plurality of audience members includes, but is not limited to, an audience name and/or a number of audience respondents. Each of the plurality of questions includes, but is not limited to, a question title, a question number, a question, and/or a set of question result data. In one embodiment, the set of question result data displays a percentage corresponding to the number of shareholders who selected a particular answer to a question.)
Further, the claimed limitation “configured to…” in “the second dashboard configuration is further configured to display a survey question result.” consists of language disclosing an intended use/result, 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 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 13-14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta in view of Gordon (US 11,164,254 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Dutta does not disclose, however Gordon teaches:
the summary of the election results includes a number of owners who participated in the event and a total multiplier of the asset. (col 63 lines 60-67 & col 64 lines 1-49, FIG. 106 illustrates a Poll Results GUI for a tokenized securities platform according to one embodiment of the present invention. The Poll Results GUI is operable to display a name of a poll and/or a corresponding poll description. The Poll Results GUI includes a list containing a plurality of audience members and a list containing a plurality of questions. Each of the plurality of audience members includes, but is not limited to, an audience name and/or a number of audience respondents. Each of the plurality of questions includes, but is not limited to, a question title, a question number, a question, and/or a set of question result data. In one embodiment, the set of question result data displays a percentage corresponding to the number of shareholders who selected a particular answer to a question. In another embodiment, the set of question result data displays a percentage corresponding to the shareholder's ownership interest. For example, if a single shareholder owns 25% of the entity, then the platform displays that 25% of the result reflects the single shareholder. In one embodiment, the platform displays votes of each shareholder in a different color. For example, votes from a first shareholder are displayed in a first color, votes from a second shareholder are displayed in a second color, votes from a third shareholder are displayed in a third color, votes from a fourth shareholder are displayed in a fourth color, etc. Additionally or alternatively, voting results are presented in a table. In one embodiment, the platform allows voting results to be filtered by shareholder. The platform is further operable to display results of voting by a particular share class and/or across share classes based on the voting rights of the share class. For example, if preferred shareholders have a 2:1 voting right, then the total votes for the preferred shareholders is multiplied by two for every share held. In one embodiment, the platform displays votes from preferred shareholders in a first color and votes from common shareholders in a second color. In another embodiment, the platform displays each share class in a different color. For example, votes from a first share class are displayed in a first color, votes from a second share class are displayed in a second color, votes from a third share class are displayed in a third color, votes from a fourth share class are displayed in a fourth color, etc. Additionally or alternatively, voting results are presented in a table. In one embodiment, the platform allows voting results to be filtered by share class. This is an important distinction from commonly available electronic polling methods, which generally only tally one vote per person. Shareholders often own more than one share, and each share class may have different voting rights. For example, if Shareholder 1 owns 80 shares of common stock and Shareholder 2 owns 60 shares of preferred stock with a 2:1 voting right, Shareholder 1 has 80 votes and Shareholder 2 has 120 votes. Commonly available electronic polling methods would count 1 vote each for Shareholder 1 and Shareholder 2, which does not accurately reflect each shareholder's voting rights.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modify the invention of Dutta with the teaching of Gordon. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to provide voting results that include detail information to the users to ensure a transparent and secure election.
Further, the claimed limitation “the summary of the election results includes a number of owners who participated in the event and a total multiplier of the asset” only describe characteristics of the summary of the election results which is 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 14, the combination of Dutta and Gordon further discloses:
the at least one graphical element is further configured to illustrate the total multiplier of the asset. (col 64 lines 22-27, The platform is further operable to display results of voting by a particular share class and/or across share classes based on the voting rights of the share class. For example, if preferred shareholders have a 2:1 voting right, then the total votes for the preferred shareholders is multiplied by two for every share held. col 64 lines 39-49, This is an important distinction from commonly available electronic polling methods, which generally only tally one vote per person. Shareholders often own more than one share, and each share class may have different voting rights. For example, if Shareholder 1 owns 80 shares of common stock and Shareholder 2 owns 60 shares of preferred stock with a 2:1 voting right, Shareholder 1 has 80 votes and Shareholder 2 has 120 votes. Commonly available electronic polling methods would count 1 vote each for Shareholder 1 and Shareholder 2, which does not accurately reflect each shareholder's voting rights.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Dutta and Gordon with the additional teaching of Gordon. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to provide the correct number of votes based on the multipliers for each voter.
Further, the claimed limitation “configured to…” in “the at least one graphical element is further configured to illustrate the total multiplier of the asset” 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.
Regarding claim 26, Dutta does not disclose, however Gordon teaches:
the second dashboard configuration is configured to use color to display results on the outcome portal. (col 64 lines 12-18, In one embodiment, the platform displays votes of each shareholder in a different color. For example, votes from a first shareholder are displayed in a first color, votes from a second shareholder are displayed in a second color, votes from a third shareholder are displayed in a third color, votes from a fourth shareholder are displayed in a fourth color, etc. col 64 lines 29-35, In one embodiment, the platform displays votes from preferred shareholders in a first color and votes from common shareholders in a second color. In another embodiment, the platform displays each share class in a different color. For example, votes from a first share class are displayed in a first color, votes from a second share class are displayed in a second color, votes from a third share class are displayed in a third color, votes from a fourth share class are displayed in a fourth color, 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 Gordon with the additional teaching of Gordon. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to provide clear and easy to read voting results to the users.
Further, the claimed limitation “configured to…” in “the second dashboard configuration is configured to use color to display results on the outcome portal.” consists of language disclosing an intended use/result, 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 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 11 above in view of Levin (US 2024/0193622 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Dutta does not disclose, however Levin teaches:
the at least one graphical element further includes a toggle configured to turn the display of the first dashboard configuration on or off. (Levin ¶0015, In an example embodiment, the respective graphical element is displayed via the display of the user computing entity responsive to user interaction with an interactive toggle element of the IUI. ¶0135, In an example embodiment, the IUI 600 comprises an interactive toggle element 620. In an example embodiment, the IUI 600 is first displayed via the display 316 without displaying the graphical elements 610. A user may control a user input device (e.g., mouse) of the user computing entity 30 to interact with the interactive toggle element 620 and thereby cause the graphical elements 610 to be displayed via the IUI 600. For example, the graphical elements 610 are displayed responsive to user interaction with the interactive toggle element 620, in an example embodiment. This enables the user of the user computing entity 30 to access the information provided by the graphical elements 610 at will while also allowing the user to view a simplified IUI at will, which improves the user experience of consuming information via the IUI.)
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 teaching of Dutta with the teaching of Levin. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order enable the user of the computing device to access the information provided by the graphical elements at will while also allowing the user to view a simplified IUI at will, which improves the user experience of consuming information via the IUI as stated on Levin ¶0135.
Further, the claimed limitation “the at least one graphical element illustrates a current progression and a result of a shareholder tender election” only describe characteristics of the at least one graphical element which is 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, Dutta does not disclose, however Levin teaches:
activating a graphical element associated with the second dashboard configuration. ( Levin ¶0135, A user may control a user input device (e.g., mouse) of the user computing entity 30 to interact with the interactive toggle element 620 and thereby cause the graphical elements 610 to be displayed via the IUI 600. For example, the graphical elements 610 are displayed responsive to user interaction with the interactive toggle element 620, in an example embodiment.)
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 teaching of Dutta with the teaching of Levin. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order enable the user of the computing device to access the information provided by the graphical elements at will while also allowing the user to view a simplified IUI at will, which improves the user experience of consuming information via the IUI as stated on Levin ¶0135.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 11 above in view of Duggan (Tender Offer Definition, Dec 8, 2023, https://money.usnews.com/investing/term/tender-offer).
Regarding claim 17, Dutta further discloses:
retrieving, from a database, “voting information” (Dutta ¶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. ¶0036, The voting coordinator device stores information regarding votes and voters in a database, such as storage unit 106 a plurality of remotely located storage devices, or one or more local storage devices. The database preferably includes a listing of registered voters and their personal information, such as their address, telephone number, age, race, gender, and other demographic or voter information. In addition, the database may, after the voter has voted, maintain a record of the vote cast by the voter, whether the vote has been made permanent, and any comments that the voter may have made regarding the vote. This database information is used by the voting coordinator device to provide interfaces to other voters or potential voters when a voter category is selected. ¶0059, FIG. 5 is an exemplary diagram of a voter database entry according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the voter database entry includes a field 510 for a voter identification and fields 520-540 for personal voter information such as name, address, telephone number, and the like. The voter database entry further includes fields 550-590 for entry of voter category information, such as a group identifier (field 550), a gender (field 560), a race (field 570), an age range (field 580), and the like.)
Dutta does not disclose, however Duggan teaches
(Duggan ¶1, a tender offer is a conditional offer to buy a specified minimum number of shares of a stock at a specific price and at a predetermined time… ¶3, The buyer is usually willing to pay a significant premium to acquire shares, but only if the buyer can buy a specified minimum number of shares. That specified minimum is often enough shares to give the buyer at least 50% ownership of the company. If shareholders do not agree to sell at least the minimum number of shares requested in the tender offer, the conditional offer is canceled.¶, If enough shareholders agree to accept the offer such that the share minimum requirement is met, the tender offer is completed. For investors who accepted the tender offer, their shares will eventually be replaced in their brokerage accounts by the per-share cash amount specified in the tender offer. If the minimum share number is not met, the offer fails and investors who accepted the offer will keep their shares.)
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 teaching of Dutta with the teaching of Duggan. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to store and retrieve voting related information including a minimum total multiplier or minimum asset threshold associated with a tender offer in order to evaluate if the tender offer conditions have been met.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the tender offer is conditioned on at least one shareholder tendering a minimum number of shares” only describe characteristics of the tender offer which is 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 claimed limitation “to…” in “a minimum total multiplier of an asset to be elected by at least one owner of the asset for a tender offer to be valid” 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.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dutta and Duggan further discloses:
if the minimum number of shares is not tendered by an expiration date, the tender offer is closed. (Duggan ¶1, a tender offer is a conditional offer to buy a specified minimum number of shares of a stock at a specific price and at a predetermined time… ¶3, The buyer is usually willing to pay a significant premium to acquire shares, but only if the buyer can buy a specified minimum number of shares. That specified minimum is often enough shares to give the buyer at least 50% ownership of the company. If shareholders do not agree to sell at least the minimum number of shares requested in the tender offer, the conditional offer is canceled.¶, If enough shareholders agree to accept the offer such that the share minimum requirement is met, the tender offer is completed. For investors who accepted the tender offer, their shares will eventually be replaced in their brokerage accounts by the per-share cash amount specified in the tender offer. If the minimum share number is not met, the offer fails and investors who accepted the offer will keep their shares.)
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 teaching of Dutta with the teaching of Duggan. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to closed the offer if the conditions are not met.
Further, in the method the claim, the limitation “if the minimum number of shares is not tendered by an expiration date, the tender offer is closed.” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Dutta.
Regarding claim 20, Dutta does not explicitly disclose:
the operations are performed at a predetermined time interval.
However, Dutta discloses updating vote states at a predefined time interval (Dutta ¶0009, As a further feature of the present invention, the voter's vote may be held in a non-final state during a predetermined period. During this predetermined period, the voter may view the voting information described above and either decide to change his/her vote or leave his/her vote as it was entered. The predetermined period may be a predetermined time interval, such as from 9 a.m. To 7 p.m. On Nov. 11, 2001, a predetermined time interval from the time when the voter's vote was originally submitted, such as 3 hours from the time the vote was submitted, and the like. ¶0049, Once the user decides to cast a vote, the user may make use of the interface to enter the user's vote. The user's vote may be held in a non-final state until the expiration of a predetermined time period or until the user actively indicates that the vote is final and should be made permanent. The predetermined time period may be a time interval, a designated elapsed time from when the vote is initially cast, or the like. During this period, the vote may be changed by the user. However, after the elapse of the predetermined time period, or when the user indicates his/her vote to be final, the vote is made permanent and cannot be changed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to apply the same updating technique for pulling or updating voting information displayed to the user as both operations require monitoring and refreshing voting related data in order to maintain current and synchronized data as well as conserving processing resources by avoiding constant polling.
Further, the claimed limitation “the operations are performed at a predetermined time interval” only describe characteristics of the operations which is 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 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Parameshwar (US 11811858 B1).
Regarding claim 23, Dutta does not disclose, however Parameshwar teaches:
the first dashboard configuration further includes a report document. (col 14 lines 59-62, Also included in the interface is a “Documents” section 806. From this section, the original uploaded contract file 808 is displayed and accessible (e.g. opened or downloaded) by clicking on the name of the file as shown. See fig. 8)
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 teaching of Dutta with the teaching of Parameshwar. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to improve accessibility to reports within the same dashboard.
Further, the claimed limitation “the first dashboard configuration further includes a report document” only describe characteristics of the first dashboard configuration which is 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, Dutta does not disclose, however Parameshwar teaches:
the first dashboard configuration includes a link to access the report document. (col 14 lines 60-62, From this section, the original uploaded contract file 808 is displayed and accessible (e.g. opened or downloaded) by clicking on the name of the file as shown. See fig. 8)
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 teaching of Dutta with the teaching of Parameshwar. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these common elements in order to allow the user to download the document from the dashboard.
Further, the claimed limitation “the first dashboard configuration further includes a report document” only describe characteristics of the first dashboard configuration which is non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights