DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, 22-23, 29-30, and 36-37 are cancelled while claims 21, 24, 26, 28, 31-35, and 38-41 are amended. Claims 21, 24-28, 31-35, and 38-41 filed November 20, 2025 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 21, 24-28, 31-35, and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 21 and 24-27 are directed to a method, claims 28 and 31-34 are directed to a system, and claims 35 and 38-41 are directed to a computer readable medium all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 21, 28, and 35 recite an abstract idea of a configurable billing dealing with subscriptions. These claims fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, and within certain methods of organizing human activity, the claims specifically fall under commercial or legal interactions.
The independent claims 21, 28, and 35 recite the following limitations which fall under
commercial or legal interactions:
storing… a plurality of time-agnostic charge objects… accessible by a plurality of subscription services providers, each time-agnostic charge object of the plurality of charge objects defined by a respective subscription services provider of the plurality of subscription services providers, wherein sets of charge objects each correspond to a subscription service bundle offered by one of the subscription services providers;
processing… a selection, by a first subscription services provider of the plurality of subscription services providers via a first instance… of a first set of charge objects to generate a first subscription product configured to generate first account statements for a first bundle of subscription services that the first subscription services provider is offering to first customers, and of a second set of charge objects to generate a second subscription product configured to generate second account statements for a second bundle of subscription services that the first subscription services provider is offering to second customers, the second bundle of subscription services being different than the first bundle of subscription services;
processing… a selection, by a second subscription services provider of the plurality of subscription services providers via a second instance… of a third set of charge objects to generate a third subscription product configured to generate third account statements for a third bundle of subscription services the second subscription services provider is offering to third customers, and of a fourth set of charge objects to generate a fourth subscription product configured to generate fourth account statements for a fourth bundle of subscription services that the second particular subscription services provider is offering to fourth customers, the fourth bundle of subscription services being different than the third bundle of subscription services;
wherein each charge object belonging to the first set of charge objects, the second set of charge objects, the third set of charge objects, or the fourth set of charge objects has one or more respective associated charge segments that each define a respective interval of time over which the associated charge object will be applied;
receiving, from the first subscription services provider via a first instance… n association of a first account of the first services provider with the first set of charge objects;
receiving, from the first subscription services provider via the first instance… an association of a second account of the first services provider with the second set of charge objects;
receiving, from the second subscription provider via a second instance… an association of a third account of the second services provider with the third set of charge objects;
receiving, from the second subscription services provider via the second instance… an association of the fourth account of the second services provider with the fourth set of charge objects;
processing, by one or more… each of the first set of charge objects for the first account, the second set of charge objects for the second account, the third set of charge objects for the third account, and the fourth set of charge objects for the fourth account, wherein processing each set of charge objects for each account comprises generating charge events for each charge object having an applicable charge segment for the billing period being processed;
and aggregating the generated charge events to generate respective account statements for the first account, the second account, the third account, and the fourth account;
after generating charge events from charge segments for the first set of charge objects, receiving a change to a first change object belonging to the first set of charge objects;
in response to receiving the change to the first charge object, generating a modified version of the first charge object and adding a new charge segment for the modified version of the first charge object, wherein the new charge segment covers a time period subsequent to charge events generated from an original version of the first charge object;
and generating subsequent charge events for the modified version of the first charge object according to one or more trigger conditions of the new charge segment.
7. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “commercial interactions” or “legal interactions” include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, a configurable billing system dealing with subscriptions falls under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under commercial or legal interactions, and therefore under certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describes the concept of configurable billing dealing with subscriptions with generally recited computer elements such as an online multi-tenant server(s), billing engines, program code, first and second interface, server computers, processor, memory, client application, and remote computing device. These additional elements of a server-based subscription billing management system, billing engines, first and second interface, server computers, processor, memory, client application, database, first/second/third computer subsystem, subscription engine, and remote computing device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools to perform the configurable billing dealing with subscriptions. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a database, server-based subscription billing management system, billing engines, first and second interface, server computers, first/second/third computer subsystem, subscription engine, processor, client application, remote computing device, and memory to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 24, 31, and 38, the claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit by: wherein one of the first interface or the second interface further provides for defining a rolling window of time having a base number of units of measurement comprising the rolling window of time; the obtaining the information comprises obtaining the information during the rolling window of time; and the automatically generating the charge event comprises generating a charge event for the rolling window of time. Although the claims recite a generally recite first/second interface, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of configurable billing dealing with subscriptions, however these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 25, 32, and 39, the claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit by: at least one of the charge objects comprises an overage charge type having an overage type of trigger condition; the obtaining the information comprises obtaining the information identifying the occurrence of the overage type of trigger condition during the rolling window of time; and the automatically generating the charge event comprises generating an overage charge event based on the overage charge type. These claims merely narrow the abstract idea of configurable billing dealing with subscriptions, however these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 26, 33, and 41, the claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit by: wherein one of the first interface or the second interface further provides for defining a fixed window of time having a base number of units of measurement comprising the fixed window of time; the obtaining the information comprises obtaining the information during the fixed window of time; and the automatically generating the charge event comprises generating a charge event for the fixed window of time. Although the claims recite a generally recited first/second interface, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of configurable billing dealing with subscriptions, however these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claims 27, 34, and 40, the claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit by wherein: at least one of the charge objects comprises a discount charge type that includes a defined open time period; the obtaining the information comprises obtaining the information identifying the occurrence of the trigger condition of the discount charge type during the open time period; and the automatically generating the charge event comprises generating a discount charge event based on the discount charge type. These claims merely narrow the abstract idea of configurable billing dealing with subscriptions, however these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Therefore, the limitations of the inventions, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
15. Claims 21, 24-28, 31-35, and 34-41 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however there remains a pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Brody et al (US 2009/0055266), which discloses subscription providers, a billing engine, and charge objects. The most pertinent NPL prior art was found to be Unknown (Bentley Introduces Timely Value-Creative Subscription Innovations to Help Sustain the Infrastructure Professions: Company Endeavors to Help Both Large Organizations and Individual Practitioners to Expand Information Technology Adoption in Response to Economic Challenges, NPL), which does disclose billing and subscriptions.
16. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and the most pertinent NPL prior art do not disclose the limitations of:
storing, by a first computer subsystem hosting a database, a plurality of time-agnostic charge objects in the database of the server-based subscription billing management system accessible by a plurality of subscription services providers, each time-agnostic charge object of the plurality of charge objects defined by a respective subscription services provider of the plurality of subscription services providers, wherein sets of charge objects each correspond to a subscription service bundle offered by one of the subscription services providers;
processing, by a subscription engine executing on a second computer subsystem, a selection, by a first subscription services provider of the plurality of subscription services providers via a first instance… of a first set of charge objects to generate a first subscription product configured to generate first account statements for a first bundle of subscription services that the first subscription services provider is offering to first customers, and of a second set of charge objects to generate a second subscription product configured to generate second account statements for a second bundle of subscription services that the first subscription services provider is offering to second customers, the second bundle of subscription services being different than the first bundle of subscription services.
17. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s arguments filed 11/20/25 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are fully considered and not found to be persuasive.
a) Argument #1: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and compares to Enfish case
19. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to the Enfish case, this is not one of the ways to determine statutory eligibility matter. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of a database, server-based subscription billing management system, billing engines, first and second interface, server computers, first/second/third computer subsystem, subscription engine, processor, client application, remote computing device, and memory, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for configurable billing dealing with subscriptions. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of configurable billing dealing with subscriptions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
20. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
21. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., the additional elements of a database, server-based subscription billing management system, billing engines, first and second interface, server computers, first/second/third computer subsystem, subscription engine, processor, client application, remote computing device, and memory that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of configurable billing dealing with subscriptions. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., configurable billing dealing with subscriptions, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
22. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. The claims are directed to a subscription billing system. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
23. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Unknown (Managing Transaction Billing Across a Plurality of Billing Sources Utilizing an Interface, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
25. 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).
26. 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.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
28. 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.
29. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
30. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627