DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to a Request for Continued Examination dated February 5, 2026. Claim 19 is amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1: The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
claim 11 which is illustrative of independent claims 1 and 20 recites:
A computer-implemented method to maintain and update data structures of a capacity plan, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, configuration input for a capacity plan of a plurality of capacity plans, a plurality of container data structures corresponding to the capacity plan, each container data structure of the plurality of container data structures comprising configuration parameters specifying one or more aspects of handling a draw exchange included in the capacity plan, the configuration input indicating the configuration parameters of each container data structure of the plurality of container data structures;
generating, by the one or more processors, control data structures based on routing rules, the control data structures specifying one or more controls for each container data structure of the plurality of container data structures, the control data structures for a given container data structure of the plurality of container data structures to be used to determine
allocation of exchanges to the given container data structure for handling according to the configuration parameters of the given container data structure;
generating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of container data structures to receive exchange data, each container data structure specifying the configuration parameters of the data structure, the configuration parameters specifying terms by which an exchange routed to the container data structure is to be handled
storing, by the one or more processors, a ledger data structure comprising a plurality of sub-ledger data structures each associated with a container data structure of the plurality of container data structures of the capacity plan, wherein each exchange of the ledger data structure is broadcasted within at least one sub-ledger data structure of the plurality of sub-ledger data structures;
for each of the plurality of sub-ledger data structures, inserting, by the one or more processors, an identifier of a container data structure of the plurality of container data structures into a row of the sub-ledger data structure to link the sub-ledger data structure to the container data structure; and
routing, by the one or more processors, data of an exchange to a sub-ledger data structure of the plurality of sub-ledger data structures according to a control data structure of the control data structures and linked with a corresponding container data structure with an identifier of the corresponding container data structure.”
Step 2A Prong One
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
wherein the instant case entails managing an account and transaction data by setting up and utilizing rules in a manner that addresses inefficiencies in managing exchange data by utilizing a multi-data structure architecture that assigns exchanges to containers with specific, shared rules, rather than processing them individually (see App. Spec. paras. 0011, 0012). In the instant case, transaction data is received, compared to established rules and parameters and routed appropriately.
The next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
2A – Prong Two
The next step is to determine if the claims recite additional, limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Courts have found that claims directed to improving a technological field or computer itself and where the abstract concept is tied to performing a specific function might survive the Alice two-step analysis thereby preventing such claims from preempting other applications of the underlying idea (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P, 773 F.3d at 1257, 1259 – claims recited “a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the Internet”).
Beyond identification of the abstract idea of routing data based on predefined rules in a manner that optimizes for efficiency, there is the analysis of the claims as whole to determine whether any element or combination of elements integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the additional limitations recite generic computer components (processor, network, computer – App. Spec. paras. 0022-0024).
Although the amended claims provide additional details of the purpose of the generated structures as recited in
generating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of container data structures to receive exchange data, each container data structure specifying the configuration parameters of the data structure, the configuration parameters specifying terms by which an exchange routed to the container data structure is to be handled
storing, by the one or more processors, a ledger data structure comprising a plurality of sub-ledger data structures each associated with a container data structure of the plurality of container data structures of the capacity plan, wherein each exchange of the ledger data structure is broadcasted within at least one sub-ledger data structure of the plurality of sub-ledger data structures;
Claims 1, 11 and 20 as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application because as recited, they suggest a quantitative way to exchange and process data, but absent is any clear support for how that is a technical improvement.
The process as recited is understood to be mere instructions to apply it with a computer (see App. Spec. paras. 0021-0025).
Even if performing these steps may be cumbersome, comparing received data with preexisting data can practically be performed mentally and in this instance, this simply represents using a computer as a tool, but does not change or improve the functioning of the computer and generally links to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of processors…” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The processors are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits of how the maintaining of the data structures. The processors merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (data processing) and thus fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea is the implementation of the steps through a computer system (see App. Spec. Fig. 1; paras. 0021-0026) which are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions (see App. specification, paras. 0024-0025). Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike DDR where the improvement was to a computer centric problem, a specific improvement to the way computers operate as a result of their interactions with the internet, in processing the data, absent is any support for a similar improvement.
In contrast to the instant case, in Enfish, the distinction was made between the conventional relational table (information about each type of entity in a separate table and the relationships between those tables informing the relationships between rows in different tables) and the self-referential structure where all the information is stored in a single table and not multiple tables as in the relational DB model, In Enfish, the court relied heavily on the specification’s description of what the improvements were over conventional databases and also how the improvements are executed.
The claims as recited seem to suggest no more than automating the processing of the data. using a general-purpose computer or evidence of an improved interface (cf. with Trading Technology where the display was found to be a graphical user interface that required a specific, structured GUI paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the GUI’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specific identified problem).
Usage of processors is understood to be mere instructions to apply it with a computer. The invention as claimed may be a business solution rather than a technological solution to a technological problem because it is merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
2B – Prong Two
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The additional limitations beyond the judicial exception are the processor which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality (as generic computer components) and absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
The recited steps, understood in light of the specification do not appear to require anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computers and a network. The evaluation of received data does not represent significantly more because it is only additional information used to make a determination. The recited steps, understood in light of the specification do not appear to require anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computers and a network.
For at least the same reasons presented above with respect to the independent claims, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
.Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite additional details about the parameters and instructions under which the sets of data are compared, matched and or analyzed, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components (e.g. processor) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions. For example, claims 2-5 recite additional details of the output.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (e.g. general purpose computer systems) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 20 and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Examiner maintains the invention as claimed is not patent eligible under 35 USC101.
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 11 which is illustrative of the independent claims including 1 and 20 recites:
claim 11 recites
A computer-implemented method to maintain and update data structures of a capacity plan, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, configuration input for a capacity plan of a plurality of capacity plans, a plurality of container data structures corresponding to the capacity plan, each container data structure of the plurality of container data structures comprising configuration parameters specifying one or more aspects of handling a draw exchange included in the capacity plan, the configuration input indicating the configuration parameters of each container data structure of the plurality of container data structures;
generating, by the one or more processors, control data structures based on routing rules, the control data structures specifying one or more controls for each container data structure of the plurality of container data structures, the control data structures for a given container data structure of the plurality of container data structures to be used to determine
allocation of exchanges to the given container data structure for handling according to the configuration parameters of the given container data structure;
generating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of container data structures to receive exchange data, each container data structure specifying the configuration parameters of the data structure, the configuration parameters specifying terms by which an exchange routed to the container data structure is to be handled
storing, by the one or more processors, a ledger data structure comprising a plurality of sub-ledger data structures each associated with a container data structure of the plurality of container data structures of the capacity plan, wherein each exchange of the ledger data structure is broadcasted within at least one sub-ledger data structure of the plurality of sub-ledger data structures;
for each of the plurality of sub-ledger data structures, inserting, by the one or more processors, an identifier of a container data structure of the plurality of container data structures into a row of the sub-ledger data structure to link the sub-ledger data structure to the container data structure; and
routing, by the one or more processors, [[the]] data of an exchange to a sub-ledger data structure of the plurality of sub-ledger data structures according to a control data structure of the control data structures and linked with a corresponding container data structure with an identifier of the corresponding container data structure.”
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention (as recited in claims 1-20) is directed towards an abstract idea of transaction data processing based on pre-defined rules.
It can also be considered a mental process practically with the human mind since it entails making comparisons of data albeit with the help of a computer. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g. processor; see App. specification, paras. 0024-0028; Fig. 1).
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components to execute the steps.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g. processor) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 provide additonal details about the different step and how the predefined rules are applied to the evaluation process. For example, claims 2-5 describe additional details about the data and the generated output and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed on form PTO-892.
Mullen et al. (U.S. 2003/0009402) – shows a financial management system wherein a real bank account is notionally sub-divided into virtual sub-accounts and transactions are effected between the virtual sub-accounts without affecting the operation of the real bank account
Mimassi (U.S. 2022/0292516) - shows subaccounts created against a master account, with rules and limits
Desai et al. (U.S. 2016/0086160) – shows subaccounts and associated ledgers
The references considered individually or in combination do not appear to show the specific combination of limitations of the claimed invention for the specific details of separate data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019