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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 03/16/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application and an action on the merits follow.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claims has not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claims has not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 112.
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 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose and describe the scope of claims.
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 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Evidence that claims 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, and 20 fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed on 03/16/2026. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated Applicant specifically rejects that a combination of Raanani, Sone, and Gray would be appropriate because the three references teach distinctly different subject matter that a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine and doing so would constitute impermissible hindsight, and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because office action filed on 11/28/2025 indicates the scope of claims is related to a trial balance analytics security maintenance system. There is not support or description the invention discloses client interaction data.
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 rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 1, 11, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 1, 11, and 17 recite receives data from the plurality of data sources, extracts data elements from the data according to a definition, validates the data elements, retrieves metadata comprising threshold values for the extracted data elements, retrieves the exception rules from the database, applies the exception rules to the data elements by comparing values for the data elements to corresponding threshold values, identifies an exception based on the value for one of the data elements breaching the corresponding threshold value, and performs automatic exception resolution on the data associated with the one data element.
The Claims 1, 11, and 17 recite extracting, validating, applying, identifying, and performing steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a plurality of data sources, a database, an orchestrator computer program executed by an electronic device, and one or more computer processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity. For example, but for the “a plurality of data sources, a database, an orchestrator computer program executed by an electronic device, and one or more computer processors” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually extract data elements, validates the data elements, applies the retrieved exceptions rules to compare the values of the data to threshold values, identifies an exception, and performs automatic exception resolution/correction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving and retrieving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and retrieving data, metadata, and exception rules) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving, extracting, validating, retrieving, applying, identifying, and performing in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the plurality of data sources, the database, the electronic device, and the one or more computer processors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform receiving, extracting, validating, retrieving, applying, identifying, and performing steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 11, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 11, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the plurality of data sources, the database, the electronic device, and the one or more computer processors to perform receiving, extracting, validating, retrieving, applying, identifying, and performing steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 1, 11, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20, disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as accounting data, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the details of validating step, historical exception analysis, the different embodiments of the automatic exception resolution, which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0332199 to Olson et al.
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 17, Olson discloses a method for trial balance analytics security maintenance, comprising:
receiving, by an orchestrator computer program, data from a plurality of data sources (paragraphs 12-13, Enterprises utilizing financial data receive data from various sources. For example, the financial data may include consumer information from customer sources and credit information from credit sources.);
extracting, by the orchestrator computer program, data elements from the data according to a definition (paragraph 16, data sources 10 may apply quality assurance rules to data as data sources 10 are generating the data);
validating, by the orchestrator computer program, the data elements (paragraph 16, For example, quality assurance rules may be applied to ensure that data is accurate and complete.);
retrieving, by the orchestrator computer program, metadata comprising threshold values for the extracted data elements (paragraph 26, Memory 20 may also include historical data 32. Historical data 32 represents previously communicated data that reporting module 14 stores. Furthermore, reporting module 14 may store historical data 32 for a certain time period (e.g., historical data 32 may contain only the past 60 months of communicated data or any other appropriate length of time).),
retrieving exception rules from a database (paragraph 25, Memory 20 may include QC rules 28. QC rules 28 facilitate the determination of whether data received from one of the data sources 10 contains an exception.);
applying, by the orchestrator computer program, the exception rules to the data elements by comparing values for the data elements to corresponding threshold values (paragraphs 25-26 and 33, An exception may occur if data received by reporting module 14 does not comply with QC rules 28 or is inconsistent with historical data 32. Processor 24 may be configured to compare data received from data sources 10 to determine inconsistencies between the received data and historical data 32. In an embodiment, reporting module 14 may compare the received data to historical data 32. Historical data 32 may be used to ensure that the received data is consistent with previously received data. );
identifying, by the orchestrator computer program, an exception based on the value for one of the data elements breaching the corresponding threshold value (paragraph 34, reporting module 14 may use exception rules 30 and processor 24 to determine whether the exception is a warning exception or a fatal exception. For example, reporting module 14 may use exception rules 30 and processor 24 to generate a fatal exception, which may indicate that reporting module 14 should prevent communicating the received data to external modules 16. For example, exception rules 30 may instruct processor 24 or other suitable components of reporting module 14 to generate a fatal exception if one field of the received data indicates that an account is current and another field of the received data indicates that the customer missed a payment. As a further example, exception rules 20 may instruct processor 24 or other suitable components of reporting module 14 to generate a warning exception when a customer's name differs between the received data and historical data 32.); and
performing, by the orchestrator computer program, automatic exception resolution on the data associated with the one data element (paragraph 36, While still complying with appropriate affiliate sharing rules, the common exceptions report may be communicated to any number of data sources 10, including a broadcast message to all of the data sources 10. One or more data sources 10 may then utilize the common exceptions report to correct errors and/or inconsistencies in data. This allows for data sources 10 to increase data accuracy.).
With regard to claim 2, Olson discloses the data comprises accounting data (paragraph 12, This data may include consumer data or credit data. Consumer data may include, but is not limited to, consumer deposits or any other suitable type of data. Credit data may include, but is not limited to, consumer credit cards, home loans, mortgages, auto loans, small business credit cards, recovery, military data, any other suitable type of data, or any combination of the preceding.).
With regard to claim 3, Olson discloses the definition is based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (paragraphs 16 and 31, Quality assurance rules are generally applied by data sources 10 and may be applied as data sources 10 create a data file. Quality assurance rules ensure that data meets certain requirements before being communicated to reporting module 14. Examiner notes that GAAP definition is a well-known definition/rule applied in a accounting technology field. By definition, GAAP stands for generally accepted accounting principles, which set the standard accounting rules for preparing, presenting, and reporting financial statements in the U.S. The goal of GAAP is to ensure that a company's financial statements are complete, consistent, and comparable).
With regard to claims 4 and 12, Olson discloses the orchestrator computer program validates the data elements by confirming that a set of the data elements is complete (paragraph 16).
With regard to claims 5 and 12, Olson discloses the orchestrator computer program validates the data elements by confirming that a set of data elements comprises data elements necessary for application of the exception rules (paragraphs 16 and 31).
With regard to claims 8, 14, and 18, Olson discloses the automatic exception resolution comprises sending an event with corrected data to one of the data sources (paragraph 36, reporting module 14 may generate a common exceptions report for communication to one or more data sources 10. The common exceptions report may detail an exception present in the received data as determined by reporting module 14. For example, the common exceptions report may detail an inconsistency between two or more data sources 10 or an illogical condition within the received data. Reporting module 14 may communicate the common exceptions report to one or more data sources 10.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0332199 to Olson et al., in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0225578 to Vyas et al.
With regard to claim 6, Olson substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, Olson does not disclose validating, by the orchestrator computer program, the exception rules.
However, Vyas teaches validating, by the orchestrator computer program, the exception rules (Automated analysis of past exceptions data may reveal certain patterns and scenarios which can be framed into rules for generating smart exceptions. The rules engine 110 may comprise a rules developer 111 to generate analytics based rules using machine learning algorithms, paragraph 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olson to include, validating, by the orchestrator computer program, the exception rules, as taught in Vyas, in order to utilize various analytical engines and knowledge sources to analyze machine data, identify exceptions (or adverse conditions), and generate reports as a result of the analysis (Vyas, paragraph 2).
With regard to claims 7 and 13, Olson substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, Olson does not disclose the exception rules are based on historical exception analysis.
However, Vyas teaches the exception rules are based on historical exception analysis (the rules engine 110 may process the exceptions using rules developed by analyzing the exceptions related data. Automated analysis of past exceptions data may reveal certain patterns and scenarios which can be framed into rules for generating smart exceptions, paragraph 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olson to include, the exception rules are based on historical exception analysis, as taught in Vyas, in order to utilize various analytical engines and knowledge sources to analyze machine data, identify exceptions (or adverse conditions), and generate reports as a result of the analysis (Vyas, paragraph 2).
With regard to claims 9, 15, and 19, Olson substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, Olson does not disclose the automatic exception resolution comprises sending an event with corrected data to a downstream system.
However, Vyas teaches the automatic exception resolution comprises sending an event with corrected data to a downstream system (For this, the interface 112 may be communicatively coupled to the analyzer 108 to receive data of all the exceptions. Upon receiving the notification, a servicing operation may be scheduled to rectify the exceptions and/or replace the respective machine components associated with the exceptions, paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olson to include, the automatic exception resolution comprises sending an event with corrected data to a downstream system, as taught in Vyas, in order to utilize various analytical engines and knowledge sources to analyze machine data, identify exceptions (or adverse conditions), and generate reports as a result of the analysis (Vyas, paragraph 2).
With regard to claims 10, 16, and 20, Olson substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, Olson does not disclose the automatic exception resolution comprises closing out an exception in response to a set of data elements following a pattern similar to a previously reviewed set of data elements having a closed exception.
However, Vyas teaches the automatic exception resolution comprises closing out an exception in response to a set of data elements following a pattern similar to a previously reviewed set of data elements having a closed exception (Further, the exceptions and associated resolution of the exceptions may be stored as feedback in the data store 106. In this way, the system 104 may learn from its operation and develop a knowledge source comprising various exceptions and associated resolutions which may be utilized to appropriately modify the analytical models within the analyzer 108. Examiner notes that closing out a reception is just one specific resolution stored as feedback in the data store, paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olson to include, the automatic exception resolution comprises closing out an exception in response to a set of data elements following a pattern similar to a previously reviewed set of data elements having a closed exception, as taught in Vyas, in order to utilize various analytical engines and knowledge sources to analyze machine data, identify exceptions (or adverse conditions), and generate reports as a result of the analysis (Vyas, paragraph 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive especially in light of the previously references used in the rejections.
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 03/16/2026 has been considered. However, amendment on 03/16/2026 cannot be entered because the amended claims is not related to the scope of the claims and are not supported by the specification. The invention describes a trail balance analytics security maintenance system. There is not support regarding interaction data including an out of office reply…and an interaction with an assistant.
Examiner directs Applicants' attention to the office action above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Ariel Yu whose telephone number is 571-270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights