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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category: a system, a method or one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 or claim 11 or claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea of model exchanges of a capacity plan with configuration parameters, comprising: to store: a plurality of containers corresponding to the capacity plan, each container of the plurality of containers comprising configuration parameters specifying one or more aspects of handling a draw exchange included in the capacity plan; a table to broadcast exchanges associated with the capacity plan, the table comprising a plurality of sub-tables each associated with a container of the plurality of containers, wherein each exchange of the table is broadcasted within at least one sub-table of the plurality of sub-tables; control structures respectively stored as databases comprising executable rules for modeling exchanges to model exchanges with the configuration parameters of a given sub-table of the plurality of sub-tables, the control being linked to respective containers of the plurality of containers to restrict routing of exchanges to given sub-tables according to rules; to: generate the plurality of containers to include the configuration parameters of each container of the plurality of containers; receive, via, exchange data for an exchange; execute the rules in databases of the control structures of the plurality of sub-tables using the exchange data to select the configuration parameters with the exchange is to be modeled, wherein the control structure specify one or more controls for each container of the plurality of containers, the control structures for a given container of the plurality of containers to be used to determine allocation of exchanges to the given container for handling according to the configuration parameters of the given container; and generate an entry in a sub-table corresponding to the determined configuration parameters to broadcast the exchange in the sub-table of the plurality of sub-tables according to the control structures of a corresponding container, wherein the entry is stored in the sub-table with an identifier of the corresponding container to enable subsequent updates to the exchange without reprocessing unrelated configuration parameters. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors and/or mental process: concepts performed in the human mind.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 11 or 20 include: a communication network interface to interface with a communication network; a memory; computer-executable databases; control structures; one or more processors; computer-executable in the computer-executable; the communication network interface; one processing circuit; system. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of system and display amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a communication network interface to interface with a communication network; a memory; computer-executable databases; control structures; one or more processors; computer-executable in the computer-executable; the communication network interface; one processing circuit; system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic interface, a generic communication network; a generic memory; generic processors and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 1, claim 11 or/and claim 20 is/are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-6 and 9-10, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 8, the claim 8 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 8 recites "a first application programming interface", “an exchange network”, “an exchange acquiring institution network, or merchant network” which is/are additional element(s). These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receive or transmit data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 12-18, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 11. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 19, the claim 19 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11. Claim 19 recites "a first application programming interface", “an exchange network”, “an exchange acquiring institution network, or merchant network” which is/are additional element(s). These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receive or transmit data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of model exchanges of a capacity plan with configuration parameters, comprising: to store: a plurality of containers corresponding to the capacity plan, each container of the plurality of containers comprising configuration parameters specifying one or more aspects of handling a draw exchange included in the capacity plan; a table to broadcast exchanges associated with the capacity plan, the table comprising a plurality of sub-tables each associated with a container of the plurality of containers, wherein each exchange of the table is broadcasted within at least one sub-table of the plurality of sub-tables; control structures respectively stored as databases comprising executable rules for modeling exchanges to model exchanges with the configuration parameters of a given sub-table of the plurality of sub-tables, the control being linked to respective containers of the plurality of containers to restrict routing of exchanges to given sub-tables according to rules; to: generate the plurality of containers to include the configuration parameters of each container of the plurality of containers; receive, via, exchange data for an exchange; execute the rules in databases of the control structures of the plurality of sub-tables using the exchange data to select the configuration parameters with the exchange is to be modeled, wherein the control structure specify one or more controls for each container of the plurality of containers, the control structures for a given container of the plurality of containers to be used to determine allocation of exchanges to the given container for handling according to the configuration parameters of the given container; and generate an entry in a sub-table corresponding to the determined configuration parameters to broadcast the exchange in the sub-table of the plurality of sub-tables according to the control structures of a corresponding container, wherein the entry is stored in the sub-table with an identifier of the corresponding container to enable subsequent updates to the exchange without reprocessing unrelated configuration parameters. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors and/or mental process: concepts performed in the human mind. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections that the limitations in the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. The current case does not make specific improvement to the technology. In the current claim limitation, the computer is a generic computer. The applicant has not improved the computer. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695