DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/177,239. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated August 29, 2025, Applicant amended the claims and submitted arguments. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are amended. Claim 2 and claim 9 are cancelled. The claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are pending below.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 21, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement for consideration.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are pending in this application. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 9 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112.
Claims are rejected under 112a.
Claims are rejected under 112b.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the amendments are not persuasive. The claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding prior art, the claims are allowable. The Applicant’s amendments were found persuasive in the action mail dated 08/29/2025. Applicant amended the independent claim 1 in the claim set dated 10/21/2025. The amended claims dated 10/21/2025 further narrow claim 1; therefore, the pending claims remain allowable.
An updated search was completed on January 10, 2026. See pertinent prior art at conclusion and PTO-892.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
35 U.S.C. 112
The applicant amended claim 1 does not overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 112 (a).
Examiner submits the claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a). The claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See rejection below.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
On pages 11-19 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant respectfully disagrees with Examiner’s position, and amended claim 1 to clarify technical improvements described in the specification. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are directed to a computer implements technological improvement rather than to an abstract business practice.
On page 12 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant states the invention is an automated database correlation engine that performs cross-location price validation that could not be achieved by manual or single database systems and consistent with reasoning in Enfish v. Microsoft and McRo v. Bandai. Applicant states the claimed system provides a concrete technological advancement in distributed database management that satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility framework.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment that the claimed system provides concrete technological advancement in distributed databases management. The Applicant’s specification does not disclose a distributed database. Furthermore, the Applicant is pointed to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, where elements such as structured relational database and a distributed transaction ledger are not disclosed in the specification. Applicant is pointed to the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis Step 2A prong and Step 2B analysis. See Below. Since the statement relies on elements that are not supported by the specification, Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive. Applicant’s statement of technological advancement in distributed database management is not persuasive.
On page(s) 14-15 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, Applicant states, the invention provides a non-conventional, computer-implements solution. Consisting of location information, used to reconcile distributed pricing data automatically. Applicant argues the improvement is both structural and functional that improve data accuracy, reduce latency, and eliminate manual verification, satisfying the practical application requirement under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 USPTO Guidance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment that argues an improvement is both structural and functional which improve data latency, reduce latency, etc., Applicant’s claims do not support an argument of reducing latency. Applicant’s arguments are intended functions that are not supported in the specification. Regarding structural elements, Examiner points the Applicant to the pending 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection(s). Therefore, Applicant’s statement is not persuasive.
On page 15 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant states under Step 2B, the ordered combination of features, including dual databases keyed by geography is neither routine nor conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2B assessment. Examiner did not make an argument of routine nor conventional. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
On page 15 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant states amended claims recite a practical technological application of location-aware database correlation and are therefore patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Applicant is pointed to the MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test Flow Chart.
PNG
media_image1.png
892
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner point’s the Applicant to the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. The Applicant’s additional elements although numerous are merely computers and databases used to gather and output data – price quotations based on workorders.
Regarding the extracting functions the claims merely state extracting information, which is abstract. Extracting information can be completed by a human, using their eyes, pen and paper, and writing a quotation based on a location.
On page 16 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant states the computer’s functioning by enabling autonomously detect and correct inconsistencies between location-specific and master pricing data, thereby improve the system’s data integrity are not a mental or business process but a concrete data-structuring technique that improves database performance. The claimed invention integrates any abstract concept into a practical application that improves computer functionality in a meaningful way – faster, more reliable, and location-aware reconciliation. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 should ne withdrawn and that the pending claims, as amended, are patent-eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s statements. At Step 2A prong one of the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, Examiner asserts that claims are generating a pricing quote using work order data, and thus, the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity - commercial or legal interaction (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The 1, 3-8, 10-13 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Regarding the extracting functions the claims merely state extracting information from blueprints and the workorder and checking the information against past data, which is mental concepts – observation, judgement, and evaluation. Extracting information can be completed by a human, using their eyes, pen and paper, and writing a quotation based on a location. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Although the Applicant argues the checking/ an auditing of the prices for locations in the work order against the pricing in the master data table as an improvement. Examiner submits, some of the argued additional elements and functions completed by the argued additional elements are not new subject matter because the information is not supported by the specification. See 35 U.S.C 112 rejection. Therefore, Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument of improving database performance unpersuasive at step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
On page(s) 17-19 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant states independent claim 1 recites paten-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 10 because it is directed to a specific improvement in the functioning a computer-based production order management system and not an abstract idea. Applicant argues the invention is simultaneously displaying photos and blueprints within the Graphical User Interface (GUI), see Figure 15. Applicant argues the block 1504 of photos and blueprints data, which can be uploaded or imported, are not generic computer recitation but address and solve a specific technical problem identified in Applicant’s disclosure (e.g., manually inputting the collected data into a spreadsheet).
Applicant argues the amended claim 1 solves this problem (manual input) by implementing a structured, machine executed GUI that simultaneously displays interrelated data blocks within a unified interface, thereby eliminating the manual, error prone data collection and transcription process. Accordingly, under Step 2A prong 2, the claim is integrated into a practical application because it improves the functioning of the computer itself in the specific technological context of digital work-order generation. Further, under Step 2B, the ordered combination of elements, including simultaneously displayed, position dependent GUI blocks provide significantly more than mere instructions to perform data collections on a computer. The amendments therefore reflect a concrete technological solution to a longstanding data-entry problem, not an abstract method of organizing human activity. For these reasons the claims, as amended, are direct to patent eligible subject matter, and withdrawl of the 101 rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s statements. Regarding eliminating the manual, error prone data collection and transcription process, the Applicant is arguing functionality that is not supported by the specification. Although the claims disclose intended functions, the additional elements that are argued and claimed are not supported by the specification. The additional element that parsing and extracting of data from the blueprints, comparing the pricing is broadly claimed. Although the Applicant as added additional elements in the claims, there are claimed elements that are not supported by the specification. These additional elements that are not supported by the specification are new matter. Therefore, Examiner does not find that Applicant’s arguments persuasive. See 35 U.S.C 112 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, First Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “…present interactive input fields…”, and “said secondary blueprint data is automatically extracted via a parsing module comprising structured parsing algorithms to analyze unstructured message data” and “… to standardize extracted data formats, and directly interface with a discrepancy detection engine for real time validation and correction alert generation without manual intervention …” and “… wherein said authorization triggers automatic task scheduling …”. However, Applicant’s specification does not in expressly or inherently require “interactive input fields” nor “… via a parsing module comprising structured parsing algorithms …” nor “… a discrepancy detection engine” nor “… triggers automatic task scheduling …” nor “wherein said unique identifier is stored within a distributed transaction ledger” nor “facilitates real-time collaboration among distributed stakeholders via role-based access controls”, nor “identify discrepancies and generate correction alerts through an integrated error detection subsystem without manual intervention”, as required by the claims.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, each claim limitation must be expressly or inherently supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 (emphasis added). "The 'written description' requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent's term. See MPEP 2163 (emphasis added).
For claims directed toward computer-implemented functions, like the presently claimed invention, “[i]f the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP 2161.01 (emphasis added). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the written description requirement requires that the specification explains how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function. Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 USC 112(a) - PowerPoint of Computer Based Training, Slides 20 & 21, (emphasis added) available at http://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/uspto_112a_ part1_17aug2015.pptx. The ability of one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how the function is to be performed are not disclosed. Id. at Slide 20.
With respect to the recitation of "present interactive input fields customized based on user access credentials and production order history" the specification does not expressly or inherently require “interactive fields”.
In various portions of the specification, the specification discusses "... is within the scope of this invention for a web form to be template 15 (FIG.1) and/or an HTML form such as an online page configured for user input of message data (FIG.1)," see [048] and " algorithm will use builder name, model name, elevation, and/or stock keeping unit number to find a match in the database or to create a new model." See [010], [050]. That is, the specification does not require that "present interactive input fields.”
With respect to the recitation of “said secondary blueprint data is automatically extracted via a parsing module comprising structured parsing algorithms to analyze unstructured message data” the specification does not expressly or inherently require “a parsing module comprising structures parsing algorithms”.
In various portions of the specification, the specification discuss, “… Message data from an email of first user is extracted and transferred to template of novel work order manager….” see [037] and “ … with master data of the first database to extract job information from the message data. At 91, a proposal is created from the extracted job information, such that the proposal has at least a portion of the master data and is customized for a user...” See [052]. That is, the specification does not require that “said secondary blueprint data is automatically extracted via a parsing module comprising structured parsing algorithms to analyze unstructured message data …,” as claimed.
With respect to the recitation of, “… to standardize extracted data formats, and directly interface with a discrepancy detection engine for real time validation and correction alert generation without manual intervention …” the specification does not expressly or inherently require “…a discrepancy detection engine …”.
In various portions of the specification, the specification discuss “… Errors are automatically identified by the work order system and alerts are generated for requests for corrections.….” see [036] and “ … template 15 is configured to detect clerical errors and other errors associated with construction model 16 such as discrepancies in pricing data...” See [037]. That is, the specification does not require that “a discrepancy detection engine …,” as claimed.
With respect to the recitation of, “… wherein said unique identifier is stored within a distributed transaction ledger …” the specification does not expressly or inherently require “…a distributed transaction ledger …”.
In various portions of the specification, the specification discuss “… The provider generates and/or receives a unique identifier on their own 79 from their database 20, by the requester's database 80, and/or by a database of a third party 81..….” see [050]. That is, the specification does not require that “ … a distributed transaction ledger …,” as claimed.
With respect to the recitation of, “… said authorization triggers automatic task scheduling and inventory allocation …” the specification does not expressly or inherently require “…triggers automatic scheduling …”.
In various portions of the specification, the specification discuss “… particular, work orders include details of including, but not limited to, who authorized the job, the scope of work, who it was assigned to, and what is expected. For example, a work order is a task that may be scheduled and assigned to a specific individual.….” see [02] and “ … when a quote is accepted36 by a client, email 39 may be automatically sent to a sales member and/or a drawing professional. In another example, email39 may be sent to a production manager when a job is ready for a production schedule....” See [0044]. That is, the specification does not require that “… authorization triggers automatic task scheduling …,” as claimed.
With respect to the recitation of, “… facilitates real-time collaboration among distributed stakeholders via role-based access controls and audit logs…” the specification does not expressly or inherently require “…real-time collaboration among distributed stakeholders via role-based access controls via audit logs…”.
In various portions of the specification, the specification discuss company may use software configured for supply chain collaboration, for example, to manage the real time communications between trade partners and superintendents or construction managers. ….” see [004] and “ … It is within the scope of this invention for the job information to be automatically updated in real-time when the computer program compares the data of an email of a customer to the data on file in the computer program system ...” See [0058]. That is, the specification does not require that “… facilitates real-time collaboration among distributed stakeholders via role-based access controls and audit logs …,” as claimed.
With respect to the recitation of, “… generate correction alerts through an integrated error detection subsystem without manual intervention…” the specification does not expressly or inherently require “…an integrated error detection subsystem …”.
In various portions of the specification, the specification discuss “A Nabla work order is generated. Errors are automatically identified by the work order system and alerts are generated for requests for correction.” See [0036]. That is, the specification does not require that “… generate correction alerts through an integrated error detection subsystem without manual intervention…”, as claimed.
Claims 3-8, 10-13 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, claims 3-8, 10-13 are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
The claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “ … the first database to extract job information including a builder name,…” the limitation of the claims lack antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 1, 3-8, 10-13 are process.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 recites, “…providing … being dynamically generated … to present interactive input fields customized based on user access credentials and production order history, … receive message data sent by a user, … further comprising an information policy and … automatically intercept production orders, extract the message data, detect clerical errors, and generate work orders using a centralized template; transmitting a request for a price quote comprising message data … ; … wherein the message data is stored in … and comprising a construction model and a blueprint of the construction model; wherein the construction model comprising price data and production data; providing a first data asset of a provider, said first data asset retains primary blueprint data stored in … , comprising price data and production data associated with at least one a construction model of a home located in a first geographic division, the home is associated with a construction model number, the construction model number is associated with a list of parts needed to build the construction model; extracting, … , message data identifying a builder, geographic division, and address, and converting, using the information policy, the extracted message data into a structured template corresponding to predefined fields … , the template associating the converted message data with master data retained … to extract job information including a builder name, the geographic division, the model, an elevation, and stock-keeping-unit (SKU) information; generating a stock-keeping-unit (SKU) number for the construction model, the SKU number uniquely corresponding to the geographic division in which the home is located and associated with location-based pricing for that division; storing, … a set of location-specific master data that includes price data and production data indexed by geographic division, construction model, and elevation, wherein each division corresponds to a distinct location-based pricing structure; retrieving, … , location-specific price data corresponding to the identified division and SKU to determine a location-based cost for the construction model; accessing, … , a production order request transaction having at least one portion of secondary blueprint data associated with said production order request sent by a requester … of said provider, wherein said secondary blueprint data is retrieved … from the received message data received …; wherein said production order request comprises at least one of a blueprint, a stock keeping unit (SKU) number, a builder name, a model name, a geographic division, and an elevation wherein said secondary blueprint data is automatically extracted … comprising … to analyze unstructured message data, identify blueprint-related fields including SKU numbers, builder names, and model elevations through contextual field analysis, apply data normalization routines to standardize extracted data formats, and directly interface with …. for real time validation and correction alert generation without manual intervention; wherein the secondary blueprint data is extracted, by the work order manager using the information policy, from the message data to identify blueprint-related fields including SKU identifiers, builder names, model names, and model elevations, and to associate the extracted fields with standardized data formats in the structured template for subsequent discrepancy detection and correction-alert generation without manual intervention; identifying and matching, using the information policy, the builder name, model name, elevation, and division of the converted message data with corresponding fields … to verify consistency of record formats across geographic divisions; simultaneously displaying, … comprising a block of model information, a block of photos and blueprint data, and a block of documents and a photo, wherein the block of photos and blueprint data are positioned between the block of model information and the block of documents and a photo on the GUI; wherein model information is collected, and stored, wherein the photos and the blueprint data of homes may be imported, collected, and/or stored, and wherein the documents and the photo are imported, collected, and stored, displaying … present dynamic input fields and to render … capable of dynamically updating job status and the message data during ongoing data entry and processing operations; receiving, … said production order request from said requester, wherein said production order request is a request for said provider to perform at least one task associated with said at least one portion of said secondary blueprint data of said production order request, whereby, said provider obtains said at least one portion of said secondary blueprint data of said production order request; providing a second data asset, said second data asset retains a unique identifier corresponding to a location specific production order, said unique identifier comprising a stock keeping unit (SKU) associated with location-specific master data including construction model, the elevation, and product pricing, wherein said unique identifier is stored within …; determining, … , the location-based cost for the construction model by comparing the price data associated with the SKU in the second, … for the identified division with the price data of the construction model record in …, and automatically detecting any discrepancy between the two; determining accuracy of said production order request from said requester by comparing said secondary blueprint data of said production order request from … to said at least a portion of said primary blueprint data of said first data asset, said … further configured to automatically identify discrepancies and generate correction alerts through … without manual intervention; whereby, said production order request is accurate if said secondary blueprint data of said production order request from … matches said primary blueprint data of said first data asset, said production order request is not accurate if said secondary blueprint data of said production order request from … does not match said primary blueprint data of said first data asset; aggregating, …, historical production data and price data from multiple geographic divisions of the same user, the aggregating including combining quantities of products from prior production orders and compiling a model- price history by location to support location-based discrepancy notifications and determination of production quantities based on historical order data over a period of time; generating, …, a proposal including a list of items to produce based on historical production data aggregated from multiple jobs of the user, wherein said proposal is dynamically tailored based on predictive analytics and prior fulfillment outcomes; sending said proposal to said requester; receiving the unique identifier corresponding to the location specific production order and associating said unique identifier with a set of predefined workflow tasks and manufacturing instructions; authorizing said request for said provider to perform said at least one task associated with said at least one portion of said secondary blueprint data of said production order request if said unique identifier is received … , wherein said authorization triggers automatic task scheduling and inventory allocation utilizing real-time supply chain monitoring and resource availability computations …; and generating, …, a work order that automatically aggregates production, scheduling, and installation data, and outputs a dynamically updated workflow accessible to authorized users … facilitates real-time collaboration among distributed stakeholders via role-based access controls and audit logs, the automatic aggregating including consolidating job-status updates, production-schedule milestones, installation outcomes, and location-based SKU pricing into a single record for the construction model within the corresponding geographic division, wherein the geographic division is determined based on address or division information contained within the message data provided by the user. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 in view of the claim limitations, are related to the abstract idea of generating a pricing quote using work order data, and thus, the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity - commercial or legal interaction (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The 1, 3-8, 10-13 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Regarding the extracting functions the claims merely state extracting information, which mental concept – observation and evaluation. Extracting information can be completed by a human, using their eyes, pen and paper, and writing a quotation based on a location. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A computer-implemented data processing method for receiving and facilitating the processing of a production order request via a web form in a maintenance work order workflow, the method comprising the steps of”, “a computer system comprising a web form executed by a processor of the computer system, the web form,” “by a content management engine within a centralized computing architecture”, “the web form is configured to”, “ computer system”, “a work order manager configured”, “from a first user device to a second user device”, “the second user device is in communication with the work order manager”; “a location specific first database”, “a structured relational database”, “in the first database”, “ a second database”, “an automated parsing module”, “a discrepancy detection engine”, “the location-specific second database”, “by a display, a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “a distributed transaction ledger”; “an integrated error detection subsystem”, in claim 1; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite 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 – see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements beyond the additional elements that are recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more . (See MPEP 2106.05 f – mere instructions to Apply an Exception ).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-13 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Claim(s)1, 3-8, 10-13 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Long (US 20240324548 A1) master price list and procurement.
Hart (US 20160019615 A1) master price list and retail.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624