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 3/23/2026.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are currently amended.
Therefore, claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus 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 “…obtaining …from a consolidated audit trail reporter, a query that identifies an order, generating an order lifecycle by determining linkages of the order to other orders using a lifecycle matrix, each order of the order lifecycle being uniquely identified at least in part based on a consolidated audit trial identifier,
recording the order lifecycle, and outputting a reporting presentation including the order lifecycle and other orders having a parent-child relationship to the 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; wherein the lifecycle matrix identifies an order by a consolidated audit trail identifier and an order 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 orders) 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 and a network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining …a query that identifies an order, determining… linkages of the order to other orders, each order of the order lifecycle being uniquely identified… based on a consolidated audit trial identifier, recording…the order lifecycle, and outputting …a reporting presentation…, the lifecycle matrix identifies …an order”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. In addition, the limitations “obtaining an order”, “recording the order lifecycle” and “outputting a reporting”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering, storing information and output data (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 …a query that identifies an order, determining… linkages of the order to other orders, each order of the order lifecycle being uniquely identified… based on a consolidated audit trial identifier, recording…the order lifecycle, and outputting …a reporting presentation…, the lifecycle matrix identifies …an 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. In addition, the limitations “obtaining an order”, “recording the order lifecycle” and “outputting a reporting”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering, storing information and output data (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). With respect to the claim elements determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
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 claims 9 and 17 are rejected based on the same reasoning in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are dependent on claims 1, 9 and 17. Therefore, the dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 9 and 17. The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more consolidated audit trail processors and the query database include in the dependent claims 4, 7 and 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “verifying…the order lifecycle is valid…” (claim 4); “output…the reporting presentation for storage” (claim 7 and claim 15), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the limitations “outputting the order lifecycle”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data output and storing (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 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 one or more consolidated audit trail processors and the query database include in the dependent claims 4, 7 and 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “verifying…the order lifecycle is valid…” (claim 4); “output…the reporting presentation for storage” (claim 7 and claim 15), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the limitations “output…the reporting presentation for storage”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data output and storing (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). With respect to the claim elements determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Storing and retrieving information in memory, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
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 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claims Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph
The previous claims rejections under the 35 USC § 112, first paragraph of claims 1, 9 and 17 have been withdrawn in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-20 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued that: “…Claims 1, 9, and 17, 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 7-9).
Answer: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above that the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the computer system claimed of a non-transitory memory and a network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining …a query that identifies an order, determining… linkages of the order to other orders, each order of the order lifecycle being uniquely identified… based on a consolidated audit trial identifier, recording…the order lifecycle, and outputting …a reporting presentation…, the lifecycle matrix identifies …an order”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. In addition, the limitations “obtaining an order”, “recording the order lifecycle” and “outputting a reporting”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering, storing information and output data (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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.
Furthermore, during the last interview, the parties 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