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 response to the reply filed March 09, 2026.
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Claim 18 has been newly added.
Claims 2-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed March 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
The flexible charge objects adding additional charge segments to trigger a regeneration of a revenue recognition schedule allows the system to efficiently and elegantly keep track of changes over time under a single relational data structure without messy, manual, or computationally expensive reconfigurations. This allows a single charge object to fluidly track a complex, evolving subscription relationship over time without generating disconnected transaction records.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed computer components have not been improved by the automation of the manual process. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), has been found by the courts not to be sufficient to show an improvement in a computer-functionality.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Similarly, the amended claims recite how the insertion of new charge segments for modified charge objects provide the same advantages. In other words, a single charge object can track all changes to a subscription relationship and its associated revenue recognition schedules over time using a single relational data structure.
Thus, just like in Enfish, the claimed technology is a specific improvement in data structures rather than a generic abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Enfish decision was directed to configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table. The court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, or instead on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. The court in Enfish found the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because the claims in Enfish changed the way a computer creates databases by eliminating a significant amount of design and setup required for traditional database structures. The instant claims, unlike those in Enfish, invoke the use of computers merely as a tool rather than improving the computer’s capabilities. Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a computer as a tool does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). At best, a shared code object is the recitation of particular type of data and what do with that data, which has been found to be routine when, as here, the manipulation of this data amounts to basic logical determinations. See Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 868 F.3d 1350, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Second, the claims overcome structural and flexibility limitations of conventional systems. In Enfish, the court emphasized that the self-referential table "does not require a programmer to preconfigure a structure to which a user must adapt data entry." Enfish, slip op. at p. 15.
Similarly, the claims of the present application also do not require adherence to a preconfigured structure as traditional systems did. The Specification describes these drawbacks of conventional systems:
Specification [0035]
The specification goes on to state how the technology solves these problems:
Specification [0037]
These advantages are reflected by the amended claims, which recite receiving a modification and simply generating a new charge segment and dynamically regenerating schedules. Claim 2 recites, "in response to receiving the indication of the amendment event, automatically appending, to the first flexible charge object by an allocation engine, a new charge segment having a plurality of time intervals and dynamically regenerating the first revenue recognition schedule for the plurality of time intervals by a distribution engine by applying respective revenue recognition rules to document respective revenue recognition of the recurring funds."
The claims thus reflect the dynamic calculation and flexibility improvements recited in the Specification. Therefore, because of these deep parallels to the advantages found to be eligible in Enfish, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem discussed in specification [0035] is a business problem, specifically an accounting problem, that describes a single subscription as multiple transactions. The solution described in specification [0037] explains the advantage of using objects as a tool for solving the described accounting problem. The objects themselves have not been improved as specification [0060] describes that the claims are implemented using software code from conventional or object-oriented techniques. The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality").
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 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 2-9 and 18 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 10-17 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 2, 10, and 18, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of defining subscription products having revenue schedules, documenting recognized recurring funds, receiving a subscription change, and regenerating revenue schedules, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting accounting for revenue from subscription-based products. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including business relations) by reciting processing subscription changes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing revenue in customer accounts, evaluating the revenue with recognition rules, and documenting the revenue. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “defining subscription products having revenue schedules, documenting recognized recurring funds, receiving a subscription change, and regenerating revenue schedules,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: defining two subscription products by performance metrics and revenue recognition rules, tracking subscription changes using flexible charge object associated with a revenue schedule, documenting recurring funds, receiving an indication of a change to the subscription, and regenerating the revenue schedule using the subscription change. The mere nominal recitation of a server, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer, interfaces, merchant systems, and code objects does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 8-9 and 16-17, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: determining a change in previously recognized revenue, maintaining records of products, maintaining records of subscriptions, generating billing events, and generating a billing summary.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite the additional elements: a server, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer, interfaces, merchant systems, and code objects. These server, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer, interface, merchant system, and code object limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The code objects are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually these 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.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accounting for recurring revenue in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing accounting process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 2, 10, and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a server, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer, and interfaces. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. 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); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), storing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies), updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a server (Specification [0021]), a non-transitory computer readable medium (Specification [0058], [0060]), a computer (Specification [0058]), interfaces (Specification [0022]), merchant systems (Specification [0021]), and code object (Specification [0060]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a server, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer, interfaces, merchant systems, and code objects. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting code objects. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting subscription-based products. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 3-7 and 11-15, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ziemann et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2012/0109887 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628