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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 01/27/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-16 and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 12/03/2025:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “The 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections” in pages 2-13, that:
“Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more … The applicant submits that the applicant's pending claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality in the context of cloud computing systems, and are not directed to an abstract idea. The applicant claims recite a processor-implemented method that uses machine-readable Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) to dynamically collect, transform, and compute usage-based parameters from distributed cloud resources to generate documents such as invoices. The applicant claimed invention addresses a technical problem that arises uniquely in distributed computing environments. i.e., the inability of conventional systems to accurately and efficiently determine usage across heterogeneous computing resources (processing, storage, memory, networking, and bioinformatics operations) in real time. Prior/existing systems rely on static rules or batch-processed logs, leading to inaccurate metering, inefficient allocation, and high computational error rates, as explained in paragraphs [0065]-[0082] of the application.
Further, the applicant's claimed invention provides a technical solution by enabling real- time, dynamic computation of resource utilization that is explicitly tied to improvements in computer operation. As recited in applicant Claim 1, the processor obtains real-time usage data through fetch-usage DAG nodes that directly interact with databases and APIs of remote systems. This data is then encoded into a machine-readable DAG template, which is dynamically generated and stored. The DAG enforces a structured order of execution in which each node performs a specific machine-implemented computation, such as applying adjustments, performing tier-based pricing rules, computing intermediate values, performing currency conversions, and transforming intermediate states into formatted document items. These operations are not generic invoicing steps; they are specific, processor-enabled transformations required to aggregate, normalize, and compute multi-class usage metrics at machine speed in a way that conventional computing systems cannot achieve … The process cannot be performed mentally with pen and paper or manually because it requires interacting with remote APIs and databases, executing dependency-ordered DAG nodes, performing currency conversions, tier-based calculations, distributed state updates, and generating structured computational outputs at cloud-scale. These operations, taken together, are necessarily rooted in computer technology and improve computer functionality, consistent with the holdings of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In the office action, the examiner states "Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto .....the Examiner first notes that generating an invoice is not reasonably understood "
The applicant's claimed invention transforms non-standardized usage data into a structured, machine-readable DAG, which enables processor-implemented, ordered
computations for generating document items, as recited in Claim 1. This transformation from unstructured inputs to machine-readable, structured outputs cannot be performed manually or using pen-and-paper techniques and represents a concrete technical improvement. Further, as shown in Figure 1 below, the applicant's system is implemented in a cloud computing environment, comprising a server communicatively connected over a network to distributed components, including user devices, metering systems, analytics systems, and accounting systems. The cloud computing environment enables dynamic, real-time, and scalable computation of usage- based parameters across distributed nodes, consistent with modern cloud-based and SaaS systems … In the office action, the examiner states "Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike En fish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts"
The applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims do not merely use a computer as a tool. Rather, the applicant claims recite a structured execution architecture, i.e., a machine- readable directed acyclic graph (DAG), that dictates how data flows, how nodes apply computations, how usage data is dynamically fetched, and how document items are deterministically generated under a constrained execution order. This is a specific, technical improvement to computer functionality, that is, the computer is not simply executing business logic but is instead reconfigured to operate based on a graph-based computational model that differs fundamentally from conventional, linear or script-based document-generation routines … The applicant respectfully submits that the amended Claim 1 is analogous to the type of eligible subject matter upheld in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In DDR, the Federal Circuit found the claims patent-eligible because they provided a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology" to a problem unique to networked computing environments. Likewise, the applicant's claimed invention solves a cloud-native, SaaS-specific technological challenge namely, orchestrating and executing analytics workflows using DAGs that compute outputs from real-time usage data dynamically fetched from distributed sources such as APIs, thereby the applicant's claimed invention is not an automation of a pre-Internet business practice. Traditional document-generation systems rely on list-based logic, where developers manually encode nested conditionals and loops, resulting in a rigid, developer-dependent architecture in which every new feature requires explicit programming effort. Unlike conventional script-based systems, where programmers manually encode nested control flow, the claimed DAG- based system is non-linear, declarative, and execution-deterministic, allowing non-technical configuration while ensuring machine-level auditability and reproducibility. In this respect, the Applicant claimed invention parallels the eligibility rationale of DDR Holdings, where the Court upheld claims that recited a "specific, non-conventional arrangement of servers" that addressed an Internet-specific problem. Here, the Applicant similarly recites a non-conventional arrangement of computational nodes within a DAG that addresses a cloud-native problem: how to automatically generate documents from dynamic, distributed usage sources in a deterministic and auditable manner. The resulting architecture cannot be performed mentally, cannot be performed with pen and paper, and does not resemble a traditional invoicing workflow. Instead, it represents a new computational paradigm for document generation in cloud environments. Under DDR, this is patent-eligible subject matter … In view of the foregoing, the applicant respectfully submits that presented independent claims 1, 14, and 20, are novel, inventive and patentable over disclosure of the cited references. Further, the dependent claims 2-13, 15-19, and 20 are similarly patentable over disclosure of the cited references not only by virtue of their dependency from patentable independent claims, respectively but also by virtue of the additional features they define. Moreover, the Applicant notes that all claims are properly supported in the specification and accompanying drawings, and no new matter is being added to the application.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner is respectfully requested to reconsider and withdraw the rejection to the claims”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, The examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the claimed subject matter steps whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement. In contrast, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant’s claims plainly set forth steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., manage the method and system to issue invoices) under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, and recited a mental processes steps/limitations that can be performed by human using a pen and paper under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping (e.g. issuing invoices utilizing directed acyclic graph (DAG)), albeit via generic computer implementation due to the “machine readable” aspect. A DAG is something humans can and would do mentally or with pen and paper. Using a computer to execute the utilization of DAG which is considered as mere recitation in high level of generality of computer’s functions that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea that do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Further, in response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the Court described the invention in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com as being directed to "generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a host website with content of a third-party merchant.", and the Court found that the invention: [P]rovides a solution to this problem (for the host) by creating a new web page that permits a website visitor, in a sense, to be in two places at the same time. On activation of a hyperlink on a host website -- such as an advertisement for a third-party merchant -- instead of taking the visitor to the merchant's website, the system generates and directs the visitor to a composite web page that displays product information from the third-party merchant, but retains the host website's look and feel.”, and “the claimed invention "is not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet," nor do the claims preempt any of the abstract ideas suggested by NLG”. meanwhile, the claimed subject matter recites steps that when viewed in ordered combination is found to be recited too broadly and generically to be considered sufficiently specific and meaningful applications of their underlying abstract ideas. The claims were directed to the patent-ineligible concept of the performance of an abstract business practice using a conventional computer of generating an invoice. DDR's claims changed the operation of a computer so that new and beneficial features were possible, while the current claimed subject matter mere utilizing a computer system to execute the abstract idea, which does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Instead, the claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300).
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 without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 14-19 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 20 recite a one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 14 and 20 recite the abstract idea of generating an invoice.
1) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors, and business relations of issuing invoices (i.e. documents).
2) The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to generate an invoice (i.e., data collection-analysis-display). The claimed process can be done by a human utilizing a paper and pen (albeit via generic computer implementation due to the “machine readable” aspect).
The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts 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." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (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.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (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").
The specification such as [0002] recites that “An invoice is a document that describes the goods and services that are offered to the clients/customers and the costs associated with the goods and services. The time and effort required to create and send invoices to customers can be reduced using billing software. In addition to accounting professionals billing software can also be used by non-finance professionals like project managers or salespeople to provide quotations or pro forma invoices. Traditional pricing models include flat rate pricing for products and hourly rates for services. However, in industries such as software, where the product may also be offered as a service (e.g. for Software as a service), there is a need to adopt different types of complex pricing models such as usage based pricing, per user pricing, freemium pricing, tiered pricing, per feature pricing, per active user pricing, etc., depending on the usage, perceived value, and/or requirements of the customer. Research has shown that the pricing model makes a big difference to the revenue generated and growth of a software product company”, the claimed subject matter and the specification recited limitations describing how the system would collect information, generate a DAG, and execute the DAG based on a specific order to generate a document (i.e., invoice) which is a process can be done by a human utilizing a paper and pen, as the process of generating an invoice from collected data is considered as a mental process in a computer environment. See MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) (III) C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: processor, a database, or an Application Programming Interface (API) call of an external device, querying a database, or an Application Programming Interface (API) call of an external device,
Claim 14: a memory that stores a set of instructions; and a processor that is configured to execute the set of instructions, querying a database, or an Application Programming Interface (API) call of an external device,
Claim 20: a one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums storing the one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes to perform a method, database or an Application Programming Interface (API) call of an external device, processor, querying a database, or an Application Programming Interface (API) call of an external device,
a) The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
b) The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited generating invoices) – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2). This stance is supported by the specification at paragraph [0002]; “An invoice is a document that describes the goods and services that are offered to the clients/customers and the costs associated with the goods and services”. Furthermore, paragraph [0002] of applicant specification suggests embodiments of the claimed system may include a general-purpose computer. For example, nearly every general-purpose computer generic to computer technology (e.g., the “system” claimed) generally includes (e.g. processor, memory, database, application) or claim limiting of fetching and/or triggering execution of a machine readable DAG by querying database or an Application Programming Interface (API) call of an external device (i.e., gathering necessary data to execute the abstract idea. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering, see (see MPEP § 2106.05(g); insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception)).
Lastly, the Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical descriptions of the system or system components that could be reasonably construed as providing functional and/or structural characteristics distinguishable from that of a generic computer and associated elements thereof. Accordingly, even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims’ additional elements are indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added to the abstract idea ‘after the fact’ / ‘post-hoc’, which is insufficient to indicate improvements to computer functionality.
c) An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). The purported improvements discussed in Applicant specification are squarely drawn to the abstract idea itself – see paragraph [0002]; “In addition to accounting professionals billing software can also be used by non-finance professionals like project managers or salespeople to provide quotations or pro forma invoices. Traditional pricing models include flat rate pricing for products and hourly rates for services. However, in industries such as software, where the product may also be offered as a service (e.g. for Software as a service), there is a need to adopt different types of complex pricing models such as usage based pricing, per user pricing, freemium pricing, tiered pricing, per feature pricing, per active user pricing, etc., depending on the usage, perceived value, and/or requirements of the customer. Research has shown that the pricing model makes a big difference to the revenue generated and growth of a software product company” of applicant specification. Furthermore, merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the abstract idea does not confer patent eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient”.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
a) As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
b) With respect to the insignificant extra solution activity recited in the claims, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
a) Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
b) Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 20 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 14 and 20 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 10: user interface, user device, an application programming interface (API),
Claim 13: API
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of generating an invoice, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-20, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Examiner is in agreement with applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/07/2025. The claims 1-20, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. The examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in any prior art. Accordingly, the applicant needs to address the outstanding rejections above in order to issue an allowability notice. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627