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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application 18/346199 filed on 1/16/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained and updated below. Rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that no record evidence suggests that merely employing any data model to "improve the accuracy and efficiency of analyzing data between trading partners of an enterprise" can result in an EDI system that can solve the problem of discrepancies between different EDI versions, thus the claim recites an improvement in computer technology. Examiner respectfully submits that eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 requires a showing of how the recited additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that by finding discrepancies representative of non-compliant behaviors and providing suggested resolutions, the claimed invention can help improve data quality, efficiency, and effectiveness and reduce resources that otherwise would need to be spent on identifying the discrepancies, which are real world benefits. Examiner respectfully submits the claim does not clearly recite the suggested resolutions as described in [0068]. The present claims read more broadly like a mapping update.
Applicant argues on p. 9 that no record evidence suggests that "conventional, routine, and generic" computers can identify discrepancies across a plurality of versions of the same document format and providing resolutions for fixing the discrepancies thus identified and no record evidence suggests identify discrepancies across a plurality of versions of the same document format and providing resolutions for fixing the discrepancies are "routine, generic, and conventional." Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of the additional elements of a computer from a client device for identifying discrepancies across versions is high level and conventional in data validation and mapping systems, as evidenced at least by the cited court cases in the Step 2B analysis and the cited prior art.
Applicant argues on p. 9 that electronic document type (e.g., an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) format) is for computer-to-computer exchange over an information exchange platform. Thus, the invention as claimed in claim 1 is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, and thus eligible in view of DDR. Examiner respectfully disagrees. DDR addressed an Internet-centric challenge. In DDR, the solution was found necessarily rooted in computer technology, because it could have not been performed otherwise, as there was "[...] no possibility that by walking up to this kiosk, the customer will be suddenly and completely transported outside the warehouse store and relocated to a separate physical venue associated with the third-party - the analog of what ordinarily occurs in "cyberspace" after the simple click of a hyperlink - where that customer could purchase a cruise package without any indication that they were previously browsing the aisles of the warehouse store, and without any need to "return" to the aisles of the store after completing the purchase" (see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotelsn.com, LP 113 USPQ2d 1097, No. 2013-1505, 2014 BL 342453, 773 F.3d 1245 page 1106 mid-4). In contrast, multiple versions of a schema existing is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. Data interoperability and version control, as recited by the claims, is data manipulation executed by a computer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments and amendments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the rejection. In particular, see applicant’s remarks, p. 10-15.
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium). Claims 1-20 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 integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-7 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 8-14 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”). Claims 15-20 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable medium”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting receiving … a superset and a data interrogation report, the superset corresponding to a document type in an electronic format standardized for computer-to-computer exchange of documents, the electronic format having a plurality of versions, the superset structured to include a plurality of tables and containing a column tracking a field name, a column tracking a usage count for the field name, and columns tracking trading partners of an enterprise, the data interrogation report containing field names, usage data, and trading partner data, each of the plurality of tables corresponding to one of the plurality of versions and tracking, per entry, which field name in the data interrogation report points to what corresponding field name in the superset to thereby cross reference disparate field names used by the plurality of versions of the electronic format; validating … the superset and the data interrogation report, the validating including identifying a discrepancy in the field names; updating … the superset with information from the interrogation report, the updating including pointing one of the field names associated with the discrepancy to the field name in the superset; generating … a data analysis report based on the updating; and … (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions, as well as mental processes. The claims recite steps to analyze data exchange metrics. Applicant’s disclosure does not recite a particular problem the claimed steps aim to solve, however, it is understood that the claimed steps aim to help identify opportunities for process optimization in an enterprise environment (Applicant’s Specification, [0066]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of commercial interaction and mental processes common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., “data interrogator” for data mapping and migration).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a computer from a client device; sending, by the computer, the data analysis report to the client device) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite 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).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite 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).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to “receiving” a superset and a data interrogation report, “validating” the data, “updating” the superset, “generating” a data analysis report, and “sending” the report (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080168109 A1; US 20070143320 A1; WO2016033493A1; Simmon et al., Improving environmental information handling and data exchange within the electronics industry, 2008.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624