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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 03/10/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 12, 19 are amended.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11, 13, 20 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 21-24 are added.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 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, 21-24 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,
diagnosing, with at least one processor, at least one match exception from the one or more transactions;
predicting
generating,
determining, associated with a category of the at least one match exception;
controlling,
preventing automated matching of the transaction when the deviation exceeds the threshold value,
generating a retention flag to prevent the transaction from proceeding to automated matching until further action is taken, or
permitting the transaction to proceed to automated matching when the deviation does not exceed the threshold value: and
automatically updating,
The limitations of claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 recite(s) concept(s) of resolving exception, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human.
The concepts of monitoring data (a), diagnosing data (b), predict /correlating data (c), generating data (d), determining data (e), controlling / comparing data and mark data (f), and update data (g), resolve an exception are considered commercial activities known in the supply chain industry.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 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:”
Examiner does not believe the current claimed invention integrates the recited judicial exception identified under Step 2A Prong One into a practical application because monitoring transaction data is considered nothing more than just gathering data / receiving data.
Additionally, the additional elements that performs limitation a is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that performs limitations (b-c, f) are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more data comparison and/or correlating data and/or matching data, and thus are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use without the recitation of improvement; the additional elements that performs limitation d is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than a call to action / message generation, and thus is considered instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that performs limitation e is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being determined, and thus is considered instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that performs limitation g is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being updated, and thus is considered instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; 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, 21-24 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, 21-24, 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, 21-24 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 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, 21-24 are allowed for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 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
Improvement in computing function
Applicant argues on pages 14-15 of the Remarks that the claims are directed to improvements in computer functionality instead being directed to abstract idea, thereby providing improvements in automated exception detection and processing the operations of ERP system, by introducing and/or enabling “automated detection of transaction inconsistencies and initiating exception-handling operations within the enterprise resource system”, “the internal processing of transaction data within ERP environments”, “tolerance-based validation”, “automated detection of transaction inconsistencies and initiating exception-handling”, “automated detection, classification, and resolution of match exceptions across transaction records obtained from multiple enterprise systems” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human and are considered commercial and fundamental economic principles and/or practices known in the supply chain business. The concept of find a match exception (specification para. 58 discrepancy, par. 83 exceptions, anomalies, or inaccuracies) in transaction data (specification para. 301 - 34 invoice, purchase order, voucher), classify the match exception, generate a call-to-action (specification para. 54 a message to resolve the problem and issue) as a result of found match exception (discrepancy) in the transaction data, control the transaction data as to decide to permit or not permit the transaction for matching, and flagged for avoid matching, and update a case status from active to resolved are known activities on ERP system in the business of supply chain. Regarding the claimed invention not being abstract like the Court cases mentioned by applicant, Examiner does not see any similarity to the cases pointed by Applicant.
Applicant argues Step 1 but it appears that applicant is arguing Step 2A Prong 2, see Remarks pages 15-24. Applicant argues from item I until item IV:
similarity to in Diamond v. case, see Remarks page 15, Last paragraph; and mentions claims 21-24 are similar to in Diehr, see Remarks page 17, Third paragraph; Examiner does not see how the claimed invention is similar to the improvement found in Diamond v. Diehr “improved upon prior art molding methods by constantly measuring the actual temperature inside the mold, recalculating the ideal cure time, and automatically opening the press when the ideal cure time equaled the actual time elapsed”; instead, the current claimed invention is directed to collect, match and compare, and classify data; generate message, control data, and updated status Therefore, the claims recite and are directed to abstracted idea.
“operations are performed using processors operating on structured transaction data maintained in enterprise resource systems, rather than on generalized business concepts.”, see Remarks page 16, Second paragraph; Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), and the use of processor does not constitute an improvement.
“enabling automated handling and resolution of transaction discrepancies within the enterprise system environment”, see Remarks page 16, First paragraph;
“These operations improve the functioning of enterprise resource systems by introducing automated tolerance-based evaluation of structured ERP transaction attributes and system-controlled exception handling”, see Remarks page 17, Last paragraph;
“The specification further explains that this architecture improves the accuracy and efficiency of exception detection and enhances the internal processing of transaction discrepancies within enterprise resource systems”, see page 18, First paragraph
Regarding items 3-5, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) does not constitute an improvement. Therefore, Therefore, the claims recite and are directed to abstracted idea.
“are consistent with examples identified by the USPTO as eligible subject matter involving automated processing of data using machine learning and anomaly detection techniques that improve computer functionality”, see Remarks page 18, and Third Paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely use machine learning involving data is not enough to show improvement in a computer-functioning. Further, It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., machine learning are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the claims are directed to abstracted idea.
technical architecture of the claimed system is similar to cases the Courts have See SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. 930 F.3d 1295 Fed. Cir. 2019) and CardioNet LLC v. InfoBionic Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-604, 2021 WL 231563 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2021) (mem.), see Remarks page 19, First paragraph. Examiner does not see any improvement as the improvements found In Cisco or In CardioNet; In Cisco, the Court have found that a human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity in networked packets not data generated from packets, and In CardioNet, the Federal Circuit found the claims patentable because of the specific way the atrial fibrillation and the atrial flutter were being detected, rather than how a generic cardiac monitoring machine would do; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) does not constitute an improvement. Therefore, the claims are directed to abstracted idea.
the claimed invention has a practical application, see Remarks pages 19-20. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the arguments above, merely applying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) is not enough to show improvement in a computer-functioning; therefore, the claimed invention does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues Step 2B see Remarks pages 20-25.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is significant more and compares with Bascom and Amdocs court case, see Remarks page 21 First paragraph, and 24-25, Last paragraph. Examiner does not see any improvement as the improvements found in Bascom and in Amdocs; In Bascom, The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred because placing the filtering tool at a remote ISP server while still allowing individualized filtering setting for different end users as a combination is considered a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, and thus are not the case of the current claimed invention, Examiner does not see any unconventional arrangement in the claimed invention. Applicant argues the claimed invention is directed to improvements in the machine- learning system and the improvements are reflected in the claimed language, like Ex Parte Desjardins, see Remarks pages 21-22. Examine respectfully disagrees. Merely use machine learning is not enough to show improvement in a computer-functioning. Further, It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., machine learning are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the claims are directed to abstracted idea without significant more.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is directed to technical improvement, , see Remarks pages 22-24. Examine respectfully disagrees. Correlating data, detecting data, analyze data, detect anomalies in data by compare and classify data, update data status are considered nothing more than merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) without the recitation of an improvement. Therefore, the claims are directed to abstracted idea without significant more.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained;
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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