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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 07/29/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19 are amended.
Claim(s) 21-24 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
The limitations of claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 recite(s):
Claim 1: “A computer-implemented method, comprising:”
Claim 10: “
Claim 12: “
monitoring, with at least one processor, transaction data associated with one or more transactions obtained from
comparing,
applying, extended price tolerance logic to the voucher extended price and the corresponding purchase-order extended price based on an extended price tolerance maintained by the one or more resource systems;
identifying,
assigning, with at least one processor,
generating, with at least one processor, a call-to-action signal associated with the
determining, with at least one processor, one or more recipient systems associated with a category of the assigned subclass;
controlling,
preventing automated matching of the transaction in response to identifying the at least one match exception,
generating a retention flag to prevent the transaction from proceeding to automated matching until further action is taken, ormodifying an execution state of a workflow associated with the transaction; and
automatically updating, with at least one processor, the at least one match exception from active to resolved only upon satisfaction of an automated validation criterion that is independent of user input.
The limitations of claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 recite(s) concept(s) of resolving exceptions, which fall into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human. More specifically, the claims limitations A-H listed above have concepts related to: receiving data (A) comparing data - (a voucher extended price to a corresponding purchase-order extended price) (B), applying and identifying data - (When the voucher's extended price exceeds the purchase order's extended price, accounting for a defined tolerance value that is not equal to zero recognizes a match exception see specification para. 153; than at least one match exception can be identified) (C, D), assign (E), generating data (F), determine data (G), controlling the transaction processing when an exception is identified until an action is taken by generating a retention flag (H.i, Fii), update data (I). and thus, are considered fundamental economic practice and activity and commercial practice and activities known in the enterprise industry.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Claims 1, 10 and 19 additional elements are:
Claim(s) 1: “at least one processor,”;
Claim(s) 10: “a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to”;
Claim(s) 19: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to:”
Claims 1, 10, 19: the one or more resource systems;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered merely receiving transaction data, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the claimed additional elements that perform limitation B is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than comparing price data, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the claimed additional elements that perform limitation C, D are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than applying a business rule that checks if the voucher's extended price exceeds the purchase order's extended price, accounting for a defined tolerance value that is not equal to zero, and further identifies the match exception, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the claimed additional elements that perform limitations E, F, G are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than assign a subclass, generate a call-to-action signal, and determine a recipient, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the claimed additional elements that perform limitations Hi, Hiii are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than controlling the transaction processing when an exception is identified until an action is taken by generating a retention flag, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the claimed additional elements that perform limitation I claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data update; when view in combination, the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical.
Further, Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas of infrastructure management to collect data, receive data, and generate reports that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
Further, the Office have found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP2106.05(g). The processing data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
Even when the steps are considered in combination, did not amount to an inventive concept.
As for dependent claims 3, 5-9, 12, 14-18, the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claims 1, 10, and 19, and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 are allowed over the prior art.
Examiner substantially agree with applicant’s arguments, specifically the arguments of first to fourth paragraph of page 26 of the Remarks filed on 03/06/2026.
Therefore, the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 as a whole are novel and unobvious.
Dependents claims 3, 5-9, 12, 14-18 are allowed for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19 are allowable over the prior art, however, the rejection under 35 USC 101 should be overcome in order to have the current application allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/29/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Applicant argues on page 13 of the Remarks that the claimed invention is not an abstracted idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention concepts of determining a discrepancy between information such as price on an invoice and price on a purchase order, see specification para. 58, and retaining the transaction until the discrepancy is resolved, falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities and are considered commercial and fundamental economic principles and/or practices known in the ERP industry.
Applicant argues on pages 14-15 of the Remarks that the claimed invention recites a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying a match exception using computer resources by applying a business rule (see specification paragraph 153) that check if the voucher's extended price exceeds the purchase order's extended price, accounting for a defined tolerance value that is not equal to zero, and to further identifies the match exception is not considered a improvement of computer technology, instead it is applying data in a business rule to check the voucher's extended price exceeds the purchase order's extended price taken into account a tolerance value to identify a match exception, and using computer as a tool is not considered a technical improvement.
Applicant argues on pages 15-17 of the Remarks that the claimed invention recites particular solution to a problem or a particular way of achieving a desired outcome. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying a match exception using computer resources by applying a business rule (see specification paragraph 153) that check if the voucher's extended price exceeds the purchase order's extended price, accounting for a defined tolerance value that is not equal to zero, and to further identifies the match exception, in combination with the other steps - assign a subclasses, generate a call-to-action signal, and determine a recipient, controlling the transaction processing when an exception is identified until an action is taken by generating a retention flag, and update match exception from active to resolved after validation, are not considered a particular solution or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome; instead, it is considered using a rule with a tolerance value to check an exceeded value that falls under a match exception that is subclassified, assigned as a call-to-action to a recipient, and is flagged as retention until validate and to be updated as resolved, and thus are considered generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues on pages 16-17 of the Remarks that the claimed invention recites a machine-processing condition that governs subsequent automated processing of the transaction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using a computer technology to automated a abstracted idea does not make the claimed invention Patentable eligible, and as stated above identifying a match exception using computer resources by applying a business rule (see specification paragraph 153) to identifies the match exception, and control a transaction processing by flagging data and update data is considered generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues Step 2B, see Remarks page 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claimed invention when viewed individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the exception. Identifying a match exception using computer resources by applying a business rule (see specification paragraph 153) that check if the voucher's extended price exceeds the purchase order's extended price, accounting for a defined tolerance value that is not equal to zero, and to further identifies the match exception, in combination with the other steps - assign a subclasses, generate a call-to-action signal, and determine a recipient, controlling the transaction processing when an exception is identified until an action is taken by generating a retention flag, and update match exception from active to resolved after validation. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception.
Therefore, the rejection under the 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights