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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 2/27/2026.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14 and 23 are canceled.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-12 and 15-22 are pending and addressed below.
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, 4-12 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 15-22 are directed to a method, a system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…obtaining from a consolidated audit trail reporter, an order, determining linkages of the order to previously received orders, and in response to determining the order has a parent-child relationship to a previously received order, generating, based on the determined linkages of the order to previously received orders, an order lifecycle of the order that includes linkage information of the order and previously received order, the previously received order being obtained from a consolidated audit trail reporter, each order of the order lifecycle being uniquely identified at least in part based on a consolidated audit trial identifier, and updating a previous order lifecycle of the previously received order to include linkage information of the order and previously received order to produce an updated order lifecycle, wherein the order lifecycle and previous order lifecycle are stored in a lifecycle matrix, that includes linkage information that establishes a parent-child relationship between each order, the parent-child relationship defining a child order as an order resulting from a routing, splitting. or combining of at least one parent order, and the lifecycle matrix identifies each order by a respective order identifier and a consolidated audit trail identifier”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. processing and generating an order lifecycle of the order) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the computer system claimed of a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and a network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining … an order, determining …linkages of the order, determining…the order has a parent-child relations…; obtained…the previously received order…; each order lifecycle being uniquely identified…; updating…a previous order lifecycle; the order lifecycle and previous order lifecycle are stored…, the parent-child relationship defining …a child order…; and the lifecycle matrix identifies… each order…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitation “parent-child relationship” is also stated at a high level of generality that defining a child order as an order resulting from a routing, splitting, or combining of at least one parent order. Thus, nothing more than just describes the data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the non-transitory memory, the one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and the network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining … an order, determining …linkages of the order, determining…the order has a parent-child relations…; obtained…the previously received order…; each order lifecycle being uniquely identified…; updating…a previous order lifecycle; the order lifecycle and previous order lifecycle are stored…; and the lifecycle matrix identifies… each order…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. The limitations “parent-child relationship” is also stated at a high level of generality that defining a child order as an order resulting from a routing, splitting. or combining of at least one parent order. Thus, nothing more than just describes the data. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 and 20 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 4-11, 15-19 and 21-22 are dependent on claims 1, 12 and 20. Therefore, claims 4-11, 15-19 and 21-22 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 12 and 20. Claims 4-11, 15-19 and 21-22 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the Bloom filter included in the dependent claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “searching…for an original ID” and “updating… the Bloom filter”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 4-11, 15-19 and 21-22 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the Bloom filter included in the dependent claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “searching…for an original ID” and “updating… the Bloom filter”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 4-11, 15-19 and 21-22 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claims Objection and Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph
The previous claims objection of claim 20, claim 21 and the claim rejections under the 35 USC § 112, first paragraph of claims 1 and 12 have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1, 4-12 and 15-22 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1, 12, and 20, as presently amended, recite additional elements which integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A of Alice…” (Please see the Applicant’s remarks on pages 10-12).
Answer: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the computer system claimed of a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and a network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining … an order, determining …linkages of the order, determining…the order has a parent-child relations…; obtained…the previously received order…; each order lifecycle being uniquely identified…; updating…a previous order lifecycle; the order lifecycle and previous order lifecycle are stored…; and the lifecycle matrix identifies… each order…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitation “parent-child relationship” is also stated at a high level of generality that defining a child order as an order resulting from a routing, splitting, or combining of at least one parent order. Thus, nothing more than just describes the data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, in the last interview, the office discussed that it was a mistake to determine that claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 16/507,633 integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the parties further discussed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,089,687 (Co-pending U.S. Application No. 14/857,219) recites the limitations “…verify the linkages between one or more of the respective pairs of orders based on the event data, wherein verifying the linkages comprises verifying, for each linkage, at least one of a) hierarchical logic validity between the pair of orders, and b) completeness of information related to each order of a respective pair of orders, and identify, based on the linkage between the respective pairs of orders, at least one order lifecycle, wherein each order lifecycle comprises a plurality of lifecycle orders, wherein the plurality of lifecycle orders comprises a new order and a fill order, each order of the plurality of lifecycle orders shares a linkage with at least one other order of the plurality of lifecycle orders…”, which the claim integrated the abstract idea into a practical application.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Appellant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights