DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 02/09/2026.
Claims 21-24 are newly added,
Claims 3, 6, 12, and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, and 16-24 are rejected.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, and 16-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 02/09/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-14, and 18-19 have been amended.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments.
Interview Request from Applicant
Applicant and Examiner discussed the 101 rejection during our previous interview following the non-final rejection. Accordingly, an after-final interview would not advance prosecution.
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 .
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-A method for reducing network bottlenecks using an event-driven architecture, the method comprising:
-executing, by one or more processors, operations comprising:
-accessing an enriched event data table comprising rows associated with events respectively keyed to particular entities, by including respective identifiers of the particular entities, in connection with receiving an event stream;
-for a particular entity of the particular entities, identifying a first event in the event stream,
-the first event indicating a first value and having an indicated entity matching the particular entity;
-storing in the enriched event data table, the first event with an identifier of the particular entity and first timing information associated with the first event,
-the first timing information indicating a first beginning time for an electronic process for the first event;
-in connection with initiating the electronic process for the first event, obtaining a current aggregated amount value for the particular entity based on the identifier of the particular entity in the enriched event data table, wherein obtaining the current aggregated value for the particular entity comprises:
-monitoring the enriched event data table and comparing respective timing information of the events in the enriched event data table with a current time to cause generation of an electronic event when the current time matches the first timing information associated with the first event,
-the events including the first event and a second event occurring in the event stream after first event; and
-instructing a set of execution workers to retrieve the current aggregated value for the particular entity; and
-initiating based on the first timing information associated with the first event and based on a set of rules indicated by a machine-learned model that is stored in a model repository and trained using training data, from a data source, comprising information regarding previous attempted processes, the electronic process for the current aggregated value for the particular entity, in lieu of individual electronic processes for multiple events, of the events, associated with the current aggregated value, without the second event being first identified by the one or more processors, despite the current aggregated value representing the multiple events, wherein the multiple events comprise the first event and the second event, wherein the second event is received after the electronic process for the current aggregated value; and
-retraining [updating] the machine-learned model based on data regarding one or more results of initiating the electronic process for the current aggregated value
The above limitations recite the concept of processing events to transfer funds from the transactions. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of accessing an enriched event data table comprising rows associated with events respectively keyed to particular entities, by including respective identifiers of the particular entities, in connection with receiving an event stream; for a particular entity of the particular entities, identifying a first event in the event stream, the first event indicating a first value and having an indicated entity matching the particular entity; storing in the enriched event data table, the first event with an identifier of the particular entity and first timing information associated with the first event; and the events including the first event and a second event occurring in the event stream after first event are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “accessing,” “identifying,” and “storing,” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of a method for reducing network bottlenecks using an event-driven architecture, the method comprising: executing, by one or more processors, operations comprising: the first timing information indicating a first beginning time for an electronic process for the first event; in connection with initiating the electronic process for the first event, obtaining a current aggregated amount value for the particular entity based on the identifier of the particular entity in the enriched event data table, wherein obtaining the current aggregated value for the particular entity comprises: monitoring the enriched event data table and comparing respective timing information of the events in the enriched event data table with a current time to cause generation of an electronic event when the current time matches the first timing information associated with the first event, instructing a set of execution workers to retrieve the current aggregated value for the particular entity; and initiating based on the first timing information associated with the first event and based on a set of rules indicated by a machine-learned model that is stored in a model repository and trained using training data, from a data source, comprising information regarding previous attempted processes, the electronic process for the current aggregated value for the particular entity, in lieu of individual electronic processes for multiple events, of the events, associated with the current aggregated value, without the second event being first identified by the one or more processors, despite the current aggregated value representing the multiple events, wherein the multiple events comprise the first event and the second event, wherein the second event is received after the electronic process for the current aggregated value; and retraining [updating] the machine-learned model based on data regarding one or more results of initiating the electronic process for the current aggregated value are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the method is for reducing network transfer bottlenecks, that the operations are executed by one or more processors, that the process is an electronic process, that the event is an electronic event, that the set of workers are a set of execution workers, that the model is a machine-learned model that is stored in a model repository and trained using training data, that the individual processes are individual electronic processes, that the second event is identified by the one or more processors, and that the updating of the model is retraining the machine-learned model, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “reducing network bottlenecks,” “one or more processors,” “electronic process,” “electronic event,” “set of execution workers,” “machine-learned model,” “model repository,” “trained using training data,” “individual electronic processes,” and “retraining the machine-learning model” language, “executing,” “obtaining” “monitoring,” “instructing,” “initiating” and “retraining” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-A method for reducing network bottlenecks using an event-driven architecture, the method comprising:
-executing, by one or more processors, operations comprising:
-accessing an enriched event data table comprising rows associated with events respectively keyed to particular entities, by including respective identifiers of the particular entities, in connection with receiving an event stream;
-for a particular entity of the particular entities, identifying a first event in the event stream,
-the first event indicating a first value and having an indicated entity matching the particular entity;
-storing in the enriched event data table, the first event with an identifier of the particular entity and first timing information associated with the first event,
-the first timing information indicating a first beginning time for an electronic process for the first event;
-in connection with initiating the electronic process for the first event, obtaining a current aggregated amount value for the particular entity based on the identifier of the particular entity in the enriched event data table, wherein obtaining the current aggregated value for the particular entity comprises:
-monitoring the enriched event data table and comparing respective timing information of the events in the enriched event data table with a current time to cause generation of an electronic event when the current time matches the first timing information associated with the first event,
-the events including the first event and a second event occurring in the event stream after first event; and
-instructing a set of execution workers to retrieve the current aggregated value for the particular entity; and
-initiating based on the first timing information associated with the first event and based on a set of rules indicated by a machine-learned model that is stored in a model repository and trained using training data, from a data source, comprising information regarding previous attempted processes, the electronic process for the current aggregated value for the particular entity, in lieu of individual electronic processes for multiple events, of the events, associated with the current aggregated value, without the second event being first identified by the one or more processors, despite the current aggregated value representing the multiple events, wherein the multiple events comprise the first event and the second event, wherein the second event is received after the electronic process for the current aggregated value; and
-retraining the machine-learned model based on data regarding one or more results of initiating the electronic process for the current aggregated value
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0055] of Applicant’s specification – “A processor may, for example, be a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) processor, a Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) processor, a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), an ASIC, a Radio-Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC), or any combination thereof.” Specifically, the additional elements of reducing network bottlenecks, one or more processors, electronic process, electronic event, set of execution workers, machine-learned model, model repository, trained using training data, individual electronic processes, and retraining the machine-learning model are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of executing operations, accessing data, receiving data, identifying data, obtaining data, monitoring data, instructing data to retrieve, initiating transfer of data [i.e. sending data], and retaining a model, as well as, a generic database performing the generic computer functions of storing data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the transfer is an electronic transfer and that the transfer event is an electronic transfer event, only generally links the commercial interactions to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 10 is a system reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 10 recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, at least one processor among the one or more processors, electronic process, electronic event, set of execution workers, machine-learned model, trained using training data, individual electronic processes, and retraining the machine-learning model, however, claim 10 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions, one or more processors, a data ingestion bottleneck, electronic process, electronic event, set of execution workers, machine-learned model, trained using training data, individual electronic processes, and retraining the machine-learning model, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claims 10 and 19 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-24, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-24 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, and 20, do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 3-5, 8, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-24 recite the additional elements of a machine-learned model, a machine learning algorithm, the electronic process, electronic transfers, a type of electronic transfer, a plurality of supervised machine-learning algorithms, a Hadoop cluster, training the machine-learned model using the training data, and feeding the features into a machine learning algorithm, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-24 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-24 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 10, and 19, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-24 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. processing events to transfer funds from the transactions) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that 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 analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
In the present application, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-24 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, and 21-24 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Moore et al. (US 2020/0327588 A1), Abdi Taghi Abad et al. (US 2020/0286065 A1), Melgar et al. (US 2018/0068294 A1), and newly cited Richards et al. (US 2017/0265076 A1). Moore teaches executing, by one or more processors (Moore, see at least: [0070]), operations comprising: accessing an enriched event data table comprising rows associated with events respectively keyed to particular entities, by including respective identifiers of the particular entities, in connection with receiving an event stream (Moore, see at least: [0044], [0019], [0067], [0054], and [0064]); for a particular entity of the particular entities, identifying a first event in the event stream (Moore, see at least: [0049], [0047], and [0035]), the first event indicating a first value and having an indicated entity matching the particular entity (Moore, see at least: [0047] and [0035]); storing, in the enriched event data table, the first event with an identifier of the particular entity and first timing information associated with the first event (Moore, see at least: [0051], [0067], and [0054]), the first timing information indicating a first beginning time for an electronic process for the first event (Moore, see at least: [0051]); in connection with initiating the electronic process for the first event, obtaining a current aggregated value for the particular entity based on the identifier of the particular entity in the enriched event data table (Moore, see at least: [0054] and [0067]), wherein obtaining the current aggregated value for the particular entity comprises: monitoring the enriched event data table and comparing respective timing information of the events in the enriched event data table with a current time to cause generation of an electronic event when the current time matches the first timing information associated with the first event (Moore, see at least: [0054], [0051], and [0021]), the events including the first event and a second event occurring in the event stream after first event (Moore, see at least: [0054]); and instructing a set of execution workers to retrieve rules for the particular entity (Moore, see at least: [0069]); and initiating, based on the first timing information associated with the first event and based on a set of rules, the electronic process for the current aggregated value for the particular entity, in lieu of individual electronic processes for multiple events, of the events, associated with the current aggregated value (Moore, see at least: [0064], [0069], and [0054]).
Moore is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require retrieving the current aggregated amount; a set of rules indicated by a machine-learned model that is stored in a model repository and trained using training data, from a data source, comprising information regarding previous attempted processes, initiating the electronic transfer without the second event being first identified by the one or more processors, despite the current aggregated value representing the multiple events, wherein the multiple events comprise the first event and the second event, wherein the second transaction event is received after the electronic process for the current aggregated value; and retraining the machine-learned model based on data regarding one or more results of initiating the electronic process for the current aggregated value.
Regarding Abdi Taghi Abad, Abdi Taghi Abad teaches retrieving the current aggregated amount (Abdi Taghi Abad, see at least: [0041]).
Though disclosing these features, Abdi Taghi Abad does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Richards, Richards teaches a set of rules indicated by a machine-learned model that is stored in a model repository and trained using training data, from a data source, comprising information regarding previous attempted processes (Richards, see at least: [0083] and [0076]); and retraining the machine-learned model based on data regarding one or more results (Richards, see at least: [0083] and [0076]).
Though disclosing these features, Richards does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Melgar, Melgar teaches initiating the electronic transfer without the second event being first recoded in a data store by the one or more processors, despite the current aggregated value representing the multiple events, wherein the multiple events comprise the first event and the second event, wherein the second transaction event is recoded in a data store after the electronic process for the current aggregated value (Melgar, see at least: [0044], [0020], and [0053]).
Though disclosing these features, Melgar does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above. Specifically, Moore, Abdi Taghi Abad, Melgar, and Richards do not disclose or render obvious initiating, based on the first timing information associated with the first event and based on a set of rules indicated by a machine-learned model that is stored in a model repository and trained using training data, from a data source, comprising information regarding previous attempted processes, the electronic process for the current aggregated value for the particular entity, in lieu of individual electronic processes for multiple events, of the events, associated with the current aggregated value, without the second event being first identified by the one or more processors, despite the current aggregated value representing the multiple events, wherein the multiple events comprise the first event and the second event, wherein the second event is received after the electronic process for the current aggregated value.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Moore, Abdi Taghi Abad, Melgar, and Richards, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Moore, Abdi Taghi Abad, Melgar, and Richards, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Cited NPL reference U (cited 11/12/2025 and 05/26/2026 on PTO-892) teaches optimizing scheduling of processing a data stream, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
Claims 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are allowable for the reasons detailed in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section of the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/14/2025.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Moore et al. (US 2020/0327588 A1), Abdi Taghi Abad et al. (US 2020/0286065 A1), and Melgar et al. (US 2018/0068294 A1).
The most relevant NPL are:
Cited NPL reference U (cited 10/17/2024, 04/04/2025, and 05/26/2026 on PTO-892) teaches a lifestyle-based house and apartment finder, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
Claims 19-20 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
Claims 19-20 are allowable for the reasons detailed in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section of the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/14/2025.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Moore et al. (US 2020/0327588 A1), Abdi Taghi Abad et al. (US 2020/0286065 A1), newly cited Becker et al. (US 2020/0259720 A1), and Melgar et al. (US 2018/0068294 A1).
The most relevant NPL are:
Cited NPL reference U (cited 10/17/2024, 04/04/2025, and 05/26/2026 on PTO-892) teaches a lifestyle-based house and apartment finder, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that the Office Action alleges that limitations of previously presented representative claim 1 "recite the concept of processing transactions to transfer funds from the transactions" (page 7). However, neither previously presented claim 1 nor amended claim 1 recites "processing transactions to transfer funds from the transactions" ( emphasis added). Therefore, the Office Action fails to identify the abstract idea as it is recited as required by MPEP 2106.07(a). Even assuming that previously presented claim 1 involves "the concept of
processing transactions to transfer funds from the transactions" as alleged, that does not mean that the claim 1 recites that as would be necessary to determine that claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A. Nonetheless, to help advance prosecution, Applicant further amends independent claim 1 to not even recite "transaction" (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of processing events to transfer funds from the transactions as the events recited in the claims are for electronic transfers of funds. Merely broadening the claims to recite ‘event’ rather than ‘transaction event’ does not change the interpretation of the recited ‘event[s]’ in light of the specification. It is clear throughout Applicant specification that the recited limitation of claims are processing transactions to transfer funds. For instance, paragraph [0011] specification states “a solution is provided that creates an event- driven architecture rather than a data-model driven architecture. Doing so allows for the payout portion of the architecture to avoid aggregating transactions - it only needs to obtain an aggregated total (specifically a current balance) once, and thus does not need to be continuously aggregating/checking the aggregation of many transactions simultaneously. The payout portion of the architecture can then forego the traditional ingestion mechanism, which means that it can avoid scanning transaction data.” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the Office Action also alleges that "'accessing' and 'identifying' in the context of [previously presented claim 1] encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities," and that "'executing,' 'accessing,' 'storing,' 'initiating,' 'obtaining,' 'monitoring,' 'instructing,' and 'initiating' in the context of [previously presented claim 1] encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities" (pages 9 and 10). However, the Office Action fails to provide any rational for why that is the case. Regardless, nothing in the claim recites "advertising, and marketing or sales activities." Therefore, the Examiner fails to identify any abstract idea as it is recited in the claim (Remarks, page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 'accessing,' 'identifying,' 'executing,' 'accessing,' 'storing,' 'initiating,' 'obtaining,' 'monitoring,' 'instructing,' and 'initiating' clearly encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities as they are steps for are processing transactions to transfer funds. Additionally, as detailed in response to the argument above, it is clear throughout Applicant specification that the recited limitation of claims are processing transactions to transfer funds and the claims are interpreted in light of the specification. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (i.e. processing events to transfer funds from the transactions).
Applicant further argues that, since the independent claims do not recite any abstract ideas for similar reasons as USPTO's example 39, the claims are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One (Remarks, page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike example 39, and as detailed in response to the arguments above, the amended claims recite the abstract idea of processing events to transfer funds from the transactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea and are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that even assuming the claims can reasonably be determined to recite an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A, which is not the case for this application, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A. For example, representative amended claim 1 as a whole integrates into a practical application because provide a technical improvement for reducing bottlenecks associated with scheduling electronic events. The claims enable electronic process that depart from traditional data-driven systems by implementing an event-driven architecture that schedules electronic process based on timing information associated with individual events and based on a set of rules indicated by a machine-learned model that is retrained using data regarding one or more results of initiating the electronic process for the current aggregated value. This architectural shift enables the system to execute electronic processes on time, even if ingestion of subsequent events is delayed, and to improve the machine learning used of the architecture by retraining the machine-learned model based on the results. See paragraphs 4, 21, 24, and 31 of the specification. The invention improves the functioning of the computer system itself by reducing bottlenecks in network execution, thereby offering a concrete and practical solution to a technological problem rooted in the limitations of prior systems (Remarks, pages 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a) describes that “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (emphasis added). Neither the claims nor the specification sufficiently describe an architectural shift that provides this reduction in bottlenecking. Additionally, merely utilizing and retraining machine-learning does provide any shift in architecture, nor does it improve the machine learning technology itself as any generic machine learning can be retrained and this retraining improved the data rather than the machine learning itself. For instance, the claims fail to recite what the technical architecture is. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that the new dependent claims are patentable for at least some of the reasons given above with respect to the independent claims (Remarks, page 12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, the independent claims are not eligible over 101. Accordingly, the newly added claims are not eligible over 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Richards et al. (US 2016/0269908 A1) teaches processing high volumes of events.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights