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 action is in reply to the amendments filed on 11/26/2025.
• Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the claim objections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
New Specification objections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 12-13, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows comparing ledger data to account data to determine differences between the data sets. The Specification at [0001] states “A validation system compares two resultant data sets against one another to validate that events affecting the data set are properly reflected in the current data set. For example, the validation system compares the ledger output of two systems for account reconciliation after each system accepts a series of transactions.” Furthermore, the Specification at [0016]-[0017] describes that data of the datasets are account balance data and ledger balance data. The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of reconciling sets of account balance data, which is a commercial and legal interaction, and therefore is an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, on pages 13, that the claims improve a computer or technological process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of the process of reconciling sets of account balance data (see at least [0001] and [0016]-[0017] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., the process of reconciling sets of account balance data, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-16, that the claimed invention has a very real practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a validation system, comprising: a validation server comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, execution of which, by one or more processing devices, causes the one or more processing devices to perform operations; a first data store; a first computing system; a second data store; a second computing system such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-16, where Applicant argues an improvement to technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0001], stating “A validation system compares two resultant data sets against one another to validate that events affecting the data set are properly reflected in the current data set. For example, the validation system compares the ledger output of two systems for account reconciliation after each system accepts a series of transactions.” And at [0016]-[0017], describing that data of the datasets are account balance data and ledger balance data.
Furthermore and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-16 regarding computational efficiency improvements, the Examiner notes that the Federal Circuit has indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-17, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea and that the claims recite features that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a validation system, comprising: a validation server comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, execution of which, by one or more processing devices, causes the one or more processing devices to perform operations; a first data store; a first computing system; a second data store; a second computing system. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 17, that the Office action does not cite to evidence that additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to the argument that that the Office must provide factual evidence to support any conclusion that the pending claims recite, both individually and in combination, no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the Examiner respectfully points out that the additional elements amount to 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). This consideration is different than the Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional Consideration –See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the lack of antecedent basis for the claimed limitation of “heuristic-based selection.”
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 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 8), and an apparatus (claim 15). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 8 to illustrate, the claim recites a validation system for recursively validating data discrepancies via heuristic-based selection of combinations of actions, comprising: receive a first state and a second state; process same data manipulation events; validate the first state and the second state, wherein to validate the first state and second state, configured to: determine that each of the first state and the second state comprises a corresponding plurality of fields, wherein each field of the plurality of fields of the first state comprises a first value generated, wherein each field of the plurality of fields of the second state comprises a second value generated; compare each of the first values of the plurality of fields of the first state to each of the second values of the plurality of fields of the second state; determine a first difference comprising a plurality of mismatches between a subset of the first values of the plurality of fields of the first state and the second values of the corresponding plurality of fields of the second state; group the plurality of mismatches of the subset by magnitude into a plurality of groups, wherein the plurality of mismatches corresponds to a subset of fields of the plurality of fields; determine a plurality of actions, wherein each action is a data manipulation event manipulating data of at least one field of the subset of fields; identify a unique action, from the plurality of actions, wherein the unique action only manipulates data fields included in one group of the plurality of groups; generate one or more branches, wherein each branch of the one or more branches processes the unique action on one of the first state or the second state, and wherein processing the unique action simulates one of a pre-manipulation state or a post- manipulation state; recursively validate each branch of the one or more branches; determine, based on the validation, a second difference between the first state and the second state for a recursively validated branch of the recursively validated branches; and present information including one or more unique actions processed by the recursively validated branch on at least one of the first state and the second state after determining that the second difference satisfies predetermined criteria. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The Specification at [0001] states “A validation system compares two resultant data sets against one another to validate that events affecting the data set are properly reflected in the current data set. For example, the validation system compares the ledger output of two systems for account reconciliation after each system accepts a series of transactions.” Furthermore, the Specification at [0016]-[0017] describes that data of the datasets are account balance data and ledger balance data. The claimed inventions allows comparing ledger data to account data to determine differences between the data sets, a commercial and legal interaction. The mere nominal recitation of a validation system comprising a validation server comprising circuitry do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a validation system, comprising: a validation server comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, execution of which, by one or more processing devices, causes the one or more processing devices to perform operations; a first data store; a first computing system; a second data store; a second computing system; are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components processor performing generic functions of determining a difference between datasets and applying actions) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220198581 A1 (“Rusu”) discloses determining a candidate financial record associated with a transaction between a first accounting entity and a second entity, and determining, using a numerical representation generation model, a numerical representation of the candidate financial record, the numerical representation generation model having been trained on a corpus generated from historical transaction records. The method further comprises providing, to a transaction attribute prediction model, the numerical representation of the candidate financial record, the transaction attribute prediction model having been trained using a dataset of previously reconciled financial records, each associated with a respective first transaction attribute; and determining, by the transaction attribute prediction model, at least one first transaction attribute associated with the candidate financial record.
US 20100332360 A1 (“Nowotny”) discloses reconciling subledger accounts by referencing source documents associated with business transactions. One process includes operations for receiving a request for reconciliation of a subledger account with its corresponding inventory and presenting at least one entry of the subledger account and at least one corresponding entry of an inventory. The inventory can be selected for reconciliation with the subledger account based on a shared subject matter of the subledger account and the inventory. If the difference between one of the entries of the subledger account and the corresponding entry of the inventory is a non-zero value, a request for reconciliation of the difference can be received.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694