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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 12/30/2025 has been considered.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-4 and 8-19 remain pending in this application and an action on the merits follow.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claims has not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
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 1-4 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 1, 18, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-4 and 8-17 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 1, 18, and 19 recite identifying a starting balance, classifying, using one or more machine learning models, a plurality of data values from a plurality of datasets as reconciled or non-reconciled and storing the classified plurality of data values in a database; extracting a plurality of reconciled data values…each of the plurality of reconciled data values having a corresponding confidence score indicating a confidence level…, identifying a first subset of the plurality of reconciled data values that are a first type; identifying a second subset of the plurality of reconciled data values that are a second type; determining a roll forward amount; extracting a plurality of non-reconciled data values having a corresponding confidence score that is below the predetermined threshold; computing an aggregate value; determining a ratio between the computed aggregate value and the roll forward amount; establishing a network communication link; retrieving additional data values from a new data source; and transmitting an alert via the link.
The claims 1, 18, and 19 recite identifying a starting balance, classifying, using one or more machine learning models, a plurality of data values, storing, extracting a plurality of reconciled data values having a corresponding confidence score, identifying a first subset data values that are a first type, identifying a second subset data values that are a second type, determining a roll forward amount, extracting a plurality of non-reconciled data values, computing an aggregate value, and determining a ratio between the computed aggregate value and the roll forward amount as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and managing personal behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instruction…the instructions configured to be executed by a system comprising one or more processors to cause the system to”, “a database and a new data source”, and “at least one network communication interface”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and by organizing human activity. For example, but for the “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and one or more processors”, “a database and a new data source”, and “at least one network communication interface” language, “identifying, classifying, storing, extracting, determining, and computing” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually identifies a starting balance, classifies data values by utilizing the machine learning models, stores the data values, extracting reconciled data values having a corresponding confidence score, identifying a first type of data values, identifying a second type of data values, determines a roll forward balance, extracts a plurality of non-reconciled data values, computes an aggregate value, determines a ratio between the computed aggregate value and the roll forward amount. Training a machine learning model and apply this trained model is generic data process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because extracting and retrieving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving a plurality of reconciled data values having a corresponding confidence score and receiving additional data values) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Therefore, the claims steps, such as establishing a network communication link to retrieve additional data values and transmits an alert via the link, have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of identifying, classifying, storing, extracting, determining, computing, establishing, retrieving, and transmitting steps in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the database, the new data source, the processor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and the network communication interface are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform identifying, classifying, storing, extracting, determining, computing, establishing, retrieving, and transmitting steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 18, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 18, and 19 do 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 of using the database, the new data source, the processor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and the network communication interface to perform identifying, classifying, storing, extracting, determining, computing, establishing, retrieving, and transmitting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 1, 18, and 19 are not patent eligible.
The claims 8-9 recite the steps of triggering a human review process, and providing a suggestion based on the roll forward amount steps.
The limitation of triggering, and providing steps as drafted, are concepts that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and managing personal behavior. For example, “triggering, and providing” in the context of these claims encompasses a person/user manually triggers a human review process, and provides a suggestion based on the roll forward amount. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and by organizing human activity, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of triggering, and providing steps in a computer environment.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 8-9. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 8-9 are not patent eligible.
The claims 10-12 and 15 recite the steps of classifying a plurality of data values, identifying a plurality of related data values, determining a similarity score that indicates a degree of similarity between a respective data value of the plurality of related and a confidence score, classifying the plurality of related data values based on the similarity score and/or the confidence score, extracting a plurality of data categories and corresponding data values, identifying one or more potential linking categories from the plurality of extracted data categories, determining a validity of the one or more potential linking categories based on the corresponding data values of the one or more potential linking categories, selecting one or more linking categories from the potential linking categories based on the validity of the selected one or more linking categories, identifying related data values between the plurality of datasets based on the selected one or more linking categories, determining an aggregate value, determining an aggregate value of the second subset of the plurality of reconciled data values, adding the aggregate value of the first subset to the starting balance to compute an intermediate value, and subtracting the aggregate value of the second subset from the intermediate value steps.
The limitation of classifying, identifying, determining, selecting, adding, and subtracting steps as drafted, are concepts that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and managing personal behavior. For example, “classifying, identifying, determining, selecting, adding, and subtracting” in the context of these claims encompasses a person/user manually classifies a plurality of data values, identifies a plurality of related data values, determines a similarity score and a confidence score, classifies the plurality of related data values, identifies one or more potential linking categories, determinizes a validity of the one or more potential linking categories, selects one or more linking categories from the potential linking categories, identifies related data values, determines an aggregate value, adds the aggregate value of the first subset to the starting balance to compute an intermediate value, and subtracts the aggregate value of the second subset from the intermediate value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and by organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because extracting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving a plurality of data categories and corresponding data values) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of classifying, identifying, determining, selecting, adding, and subtracting steps in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the database, the processor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform classifying, identifying, determining, selecting, adding, and subtracting steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 10-12 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 10-12 and 15 do 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 of using the database, the processor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform classifying, identifying, determining, selecting, adding, and subtracting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 10-12 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 13, 14, 16, and 17, disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as the roll forward amount comprises a plurality of sub-amounts, each sub-amount having a confidence score, the roll forward amount is based on the plurality of data values within the first subset and the second subset having the confidence score above a predetermined threshold, the predetermined threshold is 90%, the plurality of data sources do not share a common identifier, the plurality of datasets store data in one of a table, a report, a spreadsheet, a document, and a collection of documents, the determined roll forward amount is one of one of accounts receivable roll forward amount, an accounts payable roll forward amount, a fixed asset roll forward amount, and an inventory roll forward amount, and the first subset corresponds to credit values and the second subset corresponds to debit values which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 2-4, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 2-4, 13, 14, 16, and 17 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 2-4, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 2-4, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 2-4, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicants remark that “When properly considered as a whole, claim 1 recites a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than any abstract idea recited therein. The ordered combination of amended claim 1 includes: ML-based classification of pluralities of data values as reconciled/non-reconciled and database storage. As discussed above, the adaptive, flexible method for data aggregation and conditional data acquisition recited in claim 1 improves the functioning of a computer or provides an improvement to a technology or technological field at least by providing a technological data processing pipeline that improves upon rigid, deterministic methodologies by enabling more adaptive data aggregation and conditional data acquisition based on flexible, machine-learning based data processing. Such an improvement amounts to significantly more under controlling Federal Circuit precedent and MPEP examination guidelines. For at least these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn.”.
Examiner does not agree. The claim limitation does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effects an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Training a machine learning model and apply this trained model is generic data process. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, the claim amounts to nothing significantly more than using a computer as a tool to perform automated roll forward computation. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Applicants remark that “claim 1 is similar to Claim 1 of USPTO Eligibility Example 40, Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data”.
Examiner does not agree. Claim 1 is not similar to Claim 1 of USPTO Eligibility Example 40. USPTO Eligibility Example 40 as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. However, the claim limitation does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effects an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights