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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 21-23, 25-30, and 32-37 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits. The claim amendments and remarks are contained in the “Amendment Submitted/Entered with Filing of . . . CPA/. . . RCE,” and have been considered herein. Going forward, please file separate Cover page (i.e., “Amendment . . .”), Claims, and Argument portions of the pdf document in the file wrapper. Applicant may call Examiner for guidance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-23, 25-30, and 32-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or first paragraph (pre-AIA ) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. For lacking utility, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the relevant art to which it pertains, or most nearly pertains, to make and/or use the invention. Delivering the plural instructions “at a given time” is not sufficiently enabled by the specification. Applicant has not clarified the scope of this limitation; and as such, it is interpreted to mean that the plurality of processors forward each instruction to the corresponding computing resource at the same time.
Based on the In re Wands factors: 1. The breadth of the claims are as recited, and ordinarily defined (Applicant has not acted as its own lexicographer); 2. The nature of the invention is as disclosed in the original specification and drawings; 3. The state of the prior art includes the disclosure found in the Background section of the Specification, and within the prior art references of record; 4. The Level of ordinary skill in the art is that skill level which is typical or average for an ordinary artisan (e.g., engineer, licensed professional, computer programmer, etc.) in the art; 5. The Predictability of the art – data processing presents a common and global technological art involving large data processors and institutions (“Big Data”), whose innovation and progress is generally predictable; 6. The Amount of direction provided in the specification for accomplishing perfect timing is none to insignificant; 7. There are not Any working examples (i.e., a method of coordinating precessing of data by multiple computing resources at a given time); and as such, 8. the Quantity of experimentation needed relative to the disclosure to effect such synchronization of delivery at a same time is excessive. (MPEP 2164.01(a), citing In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). The rest of the claims depend from the independent claims, and are likewise rejected.
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 21-23, 25-30, and 32-37 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 21 is rejected because the phrase “the respective networked computing resource” lacks antecedent basis. Please change “respective networked computing resource” back to “corresponding networked computing resource” if that is the intended scope. The dependent claims fail to cure this rejection, and are therefore, likewise rejected. Appropriate clarification/changes are required.
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 21-23, 25-30, and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 21-23, 25-30, and 32-37 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards synchronizing the execution of multiple transactions at different network computing resources. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., payment platforms, law enforcement, could computing services, etc.) manually and via generic computing. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure (plurality of processors, data processing segments, networked computing resources, clock, considering latencies, etc.)) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 10/29/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The amendments overcome the prior objections to the claims and specification. The amendment’s introduction of data processing segments and acknowledgment that synchronization would require consideration of latencies, among other things, fails to overcome the § 101 rejection. The claims are interpreted under the BRI to require arrival of the segments at the exact same point in time. Rejection under § 112, enablement has been added, because the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Directing an artisan to merely consider latencies, when attempting such synchronization is insufficient guidance. Applicant’s remarks cannot cure the original description’s failure. It is noted that even the disclosure states “based in part” on latencies, which acknowledges that consideration of latencies is only a portion of what must be considered to effect the desired synchronization.
The § 101 rejection is maintained. The Claims continue to apply an abstract idea across generic computing technology, e.g., a cloud or network computing environment, to execute transactions. The claims fail to overcome the § 101 rejection because a data structure configured to cause an instruction to be communicated by a plurality of processors at the given time . . . so as to synchronize arrival or execution fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. As previously presented, dividing a plurality of tasks (e.g., transactions) across plural servers, was well-known in the art, routine, and conventional at the time of invention. (See, e.g., prior art references of record, including US 2007/0294387, and US 2008/0288498, teaching synchronization across multiple servers/storage devices). The claims continue to recite the use of generic computing technology to effect the performance of plural transactions at a given time, which are economic in nature, and thus, an abstract idea (fundamental economic principle, and method of organizing human activity).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696