DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. See remarks on page 10-12.
The rejection of pending claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, is maintained in view of MPEP 2106.04(d). Applicant’s argument of the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by reducing network bandwidth consumption and placing the computer server on standby is not persuasive because the claims do not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer server, communication channel, network protocol, or graphic user interface. Rather, claim 1 recites generic computer components performing the steps of receiving selection criteria, processing completed real-time financial transactions, identifying unverified transactions, receiving an unprompted documentation record from an end user, parsing the documentation record, comparing parsed documentation values, matching the documentation record to a transaction, and displaying that fields of the transaction are verified. These limitations further describe the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, comparing, organizing and displaying financial transaction records. Therefore, the additional elements amount to no more than applying the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The claims also do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more under Step 2B. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained. See remarks on page 17-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method. Claims 13-19 are directed to an article of manufacture. Claim 20 is directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groups: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claims 1, 13 and 20 include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 is directed to the abstract idea of “ receiving, by a computer server, one or more selection criteria from an organization client, the selection criteria specifying conditions under which completed transactions need to be verified under a set of one or more verification criteria that specify matching of one or more transaction data values; processing, by the computer server on behalf of the organization client, completed real- time transactions of an end user associated with the organization client, wherein each of the completed real-time transactions has occurred between a third-party named entity and a transaction account associated with the organization client, wherein the completed real-time transactions comprises a particular completed real-time transaction that includes a set of particular transaction data values; identifying, by the computer server, one or more of the completed real-time transactions of the end user as unverified transactions by determining that the one or more completed real-time transactions satisfy the selection criteria specified by the organization client, wherein each of the unverified transactions include one or more fields that need to be verified; operating, after identifying the one or more unverified transactions, the computing server on standby; receiving, by the computer server after the particular completed real- time transaction has occurred and through a communication channel, unprompted forward of a documentation record manually from the end user, wherein the documentation record was automatically generated by a particular third-party named entity at a time of an occurrence of the particular completed real-time transaction and acknowledging the occurrence of the particular completed real-time transaction, wherein the documentation record is provided by the particular third-party named entity to the end user and is further forwarded from the end user to the computer server; parsing, by the computer server, unstructured text in the documentation record to generate parsed information that includes a set of one or more documentation values; determining, by the computer server and using the parsed information, a set of completed real-time transactions incurred between a plurality of third-party named entities within a duration of time that is included in the parsed information from the documentation record; identifying, among the set of completed real-time transactions and by the computer server, the particular completed real-time transaction having the set of particular transaction data values that match the set of one or more documentation values in the parsed information; determining that the particular completed real-time transaction is an unverified transaction; automatically matching, among the completed real-time transactions, the particular completed real-time transaction to the documentation record forwarded by the end user; identifying that one or more fields in the particular completed real-time transactions are verified according to the set of one or more verification criteria; resuming the computing server on standby for the communication channel; causing, a graphical user interface that allows the organization client to manage the completed real-time transactions to display that the one or more fields in the completed particular completed real-time transaction are verified.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is collecting, analyzing, comparing, organizing, and displaying financial transaction records, and hence falls under organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Dependent Claims:
Claims 5 and 17 recites: wherein the end user is a first end user and the transaction account is assigned to a second end user, and identifying the unverified transaction comprises: identifying a message heading in the email receipt; determining, using the message heading, that the email receipt was transmitted from the second end user to the first end user; and identifying a set of transactions incurred between a plurality of third-party named entities and the transaction account, wherein the set of transactions include the unverified transaction using an electronic address of the first end user; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Claims 6 and 18 recites: wherein the transaction account is assigned to the end user, and identifying the unverified transaction comprises: identifying an absence of a message heading in the email receipt; determining, using an email address of the end user, that the end user is associated with the organization client; and determining a set of transactions incurred between a plurality of third-party named entities and the transaction account within a duration of time, the set of unverified transactions including the unverified transaction; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Claim 8 recites: wherein the one or more selection criteria further specifies a plurality of transaction accounts with which transactions incurred are to be verified; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Claim 9 recites: wherein the one or more fields that need to be verified include an amount of the unverified transaction, a date of the unverified transaction, or a name of the third-party named entity of the unverified transaction; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Claim 11 recites: wherein the communication channel comprises one or more of a short message service (SMS) message, email, or a SaaS platform; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Claims 1, 13 and 20 recites to a computer server, one or more processors, memory or computer-readable storage medium, communication channel, and graphical user interface additional elements to the judicial exception in the preamble. Viewed individually and in combination, this additional element to the identified judicial exception of Step 2A.1, amounts to no more than mere instructions for collecting, analyzing, comparing, organizing, and displaying financial transaction records on a generic computer. Therefore, at Step 2A.2, these additional elements do not act in combination to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1, 13 and 20 considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a generic computer does no more than “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.” See MPEP 2106.05 (citing to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014)).
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2 and 14 recites: wherein the documentation record is an image of a physical receipt of the completed particular real-time transaction; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 15 recites: wherein parsing the unstructured text in the documentation record comprises: applying a machine learning model to the image, the machine learning model trained, using a plurality of images of physical receipts of past transactions, to identify the one or more fields that need to be verified in the documentation record; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 16 recites: wherein the documentation record is an email receipt generated by the particular third-party named entity and the forward is an email forwarded by the end user forwarding the email receipt; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 19 recites: wherein the organization client is a first organization client, wherein the end user is further associated with a second organization client, wherein the real-time transactions are a first plurality of real-time transactions, wherein receiving, through the communication channel and from the end user associated with the first organization client, the forward of the documentation record comprises: receiving the forward through a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform comprising a user interface accessible by end users associated with the first organization client, wherein the communication channel comprises the SaaS platform, and wherein identifying the unverified transaction comprises: identifying a mapping of the end user to both the transaction account associated with the first organization client and a transaction account associated with the second organization client; and in response to identifying the mapping: accessing a second plurality of real-time transactions processed on behalf of the second organization client, and identifying a set of transactions from the second plurality of real- time transactions, the set of transactions incurred between a plurality of third-party named entities and the transaction account associated with the second organization client, the set of processed real-time transaction including the unverified transaction; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites: wherein processing real-time transactions on behalf of the organization client comprises: receiving a noisy string of the name of the third-party named entity of the unverified transaction, wherein the noisy string includes a string irrelevant to the name; determining, using a named entity identification rule, the noisy string of the name represents the third-party named entity; and updating a transaction data structure of the real-time transactions to include an entry for the unverified transaction, the entry including the name of the third-party named entity; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites: further comprising: causing the graphical user interface to display one or more user input fields configured to receive manual verification from the organization client that the one or more fields are present in the documentation record; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of “organizing human activity” (i.e., as fundamental economic practices) in collecting, analyzing, comparing, organizing, and displaying financial transaction records are performed by a generic computer. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer server is to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, United States Patent Application No. 20190044899 to Hughes teaches systems and methods for coordinating automated, real-time data sharing and updating between participants using disparate data formats for information transfer include a messaging interface for receiving message initiation requests including messaging data from regionally-distributed computing devices. The message initiation requests may be queued as queuing data in a global message queue. Updates may be made to the queuing data indicating a status of the message initiation requests based on reply messages received from message recipients. A message transmission system may transform the messaging data into a generic data object that is agnostic to messaging formats of a sending computing system and a receiving computing system. The generic data object may be mapped to a message format associated with the receiving computing system. Formatted messages may be transmitted to the receiving computing system responsive to selection of a message initiation request from the global message queue. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 10037347 to Saha teaches a method for reconciling transactions iteratively by segregating data into homogeneous data sets. The method includes acquiring transactions from two or more systems and comparing with a set of configurable predefined matching rules. Applying, based on the result of the comparison, one or more rules on the acquired transactions. The transactions of the two or more systems are scanned and a user defined function is applied on the transactions of the two systems. A value of the user defined function is calculated. If the value of the user defined function is residual value, a configurable criteria is applied on the value of the user defined function. A residual transaction is created in one of the systems and the value of the user defined function is recalculated. If the value of the user defined function is null value, indicates the transactions are reconciled. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20120330971 to Thomas teaches a method, including retrieving a transaction receipt, wherein the transaction receipt includes unstructured data. Features indicating details of the transaction are extracted from the unstructured data, and using a receipt language model, weights are applied to the features. Based on the features and the weights, labels are associated with tokens in the receipt, and the receipt language model is updated with the extracted features, the applied weights and the associated labels. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20150149560 to Lee teaches systems, methods, and computer-readable storage devices for message delivery according to a distribution list, from the point of view of a message relay server. An example message relay server receives a message, and parses the message to extract a distribution list identifier. The message relay server can parse the distribution list identifier from one of a body of the message, a message subject, an address to which the message is directed, for example. Based on the distribution list identifier, the message relay server can retrieve a distribution list of intended recipients for the message and the message relay server can adapt the message for each intended recipient on the distribution list based on respective message preferences, to yield adapted messages. The message relay server can deliver each of the adapted messages to a respective recipient in the distribution list of intended recipients based on respective message preferences.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim, operating, after identifying the one or more unverified transactions, the computing server on standby; receiving, by the computer server after the particular completed real- time transaction has occurred and through a communication channel, unprompted forward of a documentation record manually from the end user, wherein the documentation record was automatically generated by a particular third-party named entity at a time of an occurrence of the particular completed real-time transaction and acknowledging the occurrence of the particular completed real-time transaction, wherein the documentation record is provided by the particular third-party named entity to the end user and is further forwarded from the end user to the computer server; parsing, by the computer server, unstructured text in the documentation record to generate parsed information that includes a set of one or more documentation values; determining, by the computer server and using the parsed information, a set of completed real-time transactions incurred between a plurality of third-party named entities within a duration of time that is included in the parsed information from the documentation record; identifying, among the set of completed real-time transactions and by the computer server, the particular completed real-time transaction having the set of particular transaction data values that match the set of one or more documentation values in the parsed information; determining that the particular completed real-time transaction is an unverified transaction; automatically matching, among the completed real-time transactions, the particular completed real-time transaction to the documentation record forwarded by the end user; identifying that one or more fields in the particular completed real-time transactions are verified according to the set of one or more verification criteria; resuming the computing server on standby for the communication channel.
Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 13 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. Claims 14-19 are dependent on claim 13 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 20 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Transaction Periodicity Forecast using Machine Learning-Trained Classifier (US 20210406896 A1) teaches transaction periodicity forecasting using a machine learning-trained classifier for increasing a transaction success rate is disclosed. A transaction processing server may receive, through an application programming interface from a remote server, a first transaction request to process a transaction in an interaction between the remote server and a user device. The server may classify the transaction as a recurrent transaction with a machine learning-trained classifier based on one or more periodicities associated with the transaction and other data. The transaction processing server may generate a recurrent flag based on the classifying. The transaction processing server may communicate, through the application programming interface to an issuer host device, a second transaction request comprising the transaction and the recurrent flag for authenticating the transaction at the issuer host device. Via machine learning techniques, more transactions can be correctly identified as recurrent, improving the overall success rate on the execution of those transactions.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
In addition to the foregoing, other aspects are described in the claims, drawings, and text. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights