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
Applicant amends claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, and 19.
Claims 4,6,8 are cancelled
Claims 1-3,5,7,9-20 are pending
The rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not a mental process. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, p.21). The examiner concurs that as currently claimed, the invention appears to be a process that is not a human mental process. However, the invention may still fall under the method of organizing human activity area of abstract ideas.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention is a technical solution rather than a business process. (Id., “In addition, in the prior art, an enterprise can parse the original voucher and then fill out a bookkeeping voucher through a series of rules configured by a digital intelligence system. However, the original voucher will be missing due to various factors such as unrecovered invoices, returned payments, and so on; and problems such as recognition errors and auto-generation rule errors result in a large deviation between the original voucher and a final bookkeeping voucher. These problems are technical difficulties at the data level, not management or process problems.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Applicant points out, the underlying problem addressed by Applicant’s invention is a business problem in accounting, which the examiner interprets to be a fundamental economic practice. (See above). Although Applicant’s claimed invention recites a very detailed process, it nevertheless is an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer. That the invention is implemented on a computer does not necessarily transform the computer. (MPEP 2106, “The programmed computer or “special purpose computer” test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the “special purpose” of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”).”)
Applicant also argues that the invention is a patent eligible improvement to computer. (Applicant;s 10/15/25, remarks, p.21-22, “Amended claim 1 is not simply organizing or automating a known business process. Rather, through specific information conversion and combination logic, amended claim 1 enables the computer system to inherently identify and correct data errors. This is a direct improvement to the computer’s data processing capabilities.”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Applicant points out the features of the “conversion and combination logic”, this is part of the abstract idea, and the improvement is to the abstract idea. (MPEP2106.05a “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.”; MPEP 2016.05a.I, “It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.”). Although the abstract idea may improve accounting, the examiner finds no evidence that the function of the computer or structural elements of the computer have been generally improved per se.
Applicant also argues that the invention is a practical application of an abstract idea. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, p.24, “Obviously, the additional features in amended claim 1 have integrated the abstract idea listed in the amended claim 1 into practical applications. Specifically, claim 1 obtains the original voucher of user interaction through the user terminal, extracts the key information of the original voucher using a preset recognition algorithm, and automatically converts the key information with the entry information through the server to generate the target bookkeeping voucher, realizing the automatic correction of the missing and erroneous recording problems of the original voucher, and returning the automatically corrected target bookkeeping voucher to the user…Amended claim 1 also solves the technical problems of low efficiency and easy error of manual verification in traditional financial processing, and significantly improves the accuracy, reliability and automation level of accounting.”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As applicant points out, the invention improves the fundamental economic practice of accounting. The examiner cannot identify significant additional claim elements beyond the abstract idea in the claims. To be sure, the claimed process is quite intricate and recites a number of machine learning techniques. However, these appear to be part of the abstract idea or mathematical concepts rather than any additional elements that may weigh in favor of eligibility. (MPEP 2106, “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. “)
Applicant also compares the claimed invention to “Example 42” of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidelines. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, p.25). The examiner notes that although the USPTO has offered this guidance, the examples are not intended to be a template or basis of argument for patent eligibility. They are merely illustrations. Each actual case is decided on its own merits.
Applicant also points out that the claimed invention improves the efficiency and accuracy of voucher processing by calculating and optimizing clusters for classification of vouchers. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, pp.25-26). However, the claimed efficiency gain is to the abstract idea itself and the improvement is achieved through mathematical concepts, both of which do not present more than abstract ideas.
Applicant also compares the claimed invention to “Example 42” of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidelines. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, p.25). The examiner notes that although the USPTO has offered this guidance, the examples are not intended to be a template or basis of argument for patent eligibility. They are merely illustrations. Each actual case is decided on its own merits.
Applicant also compares the claimed invention to “Example 48” of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidelines. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, p.26). The examiner notes that although the USPTO has offered this guidance, the examples are not intended to be a template or basis of argument for patent eligibility. They are merely illustrations. Each actual case is decided on its own merits. However, to the extent Example 48 describes the illustrative patent eligibility of transforming speech waveforms, the examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant’s claimed correction of an erroneous accounting voucher is at least distinguishable because Example 48 appears to entail a more significant transformation of data. (MPEP 2106.05c, “"Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed.”)
Regarding the “Step 2B” eligibility analysis, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is significantly more than an abstract idea. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, p.32, “This process of converting unstructured/semi-structured information in a specific field into a specific numerical matrix is a specific technical application that goes beyond conventional data collection. Furthermore, the iterative algorithm described in amended claim 1 is not a general mathematical concept, but rather a specific implementation applied to a specific data structure (the quantitative information matrix) to solve a specific technical problem (intelligent grouping of voucher). The Office's classification of claim 1 as "additional abstract elements (mathematical calculations)" is inappropriate. When a mathematical algorithm is applied to improve a technical process, it constitutes part of the technical solution.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “specific limitation[s] other than what is well- understood, routine, [and] conventional activity in the field,” and recites “unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.”° Specifically, claim 1 recites features “obtaining at least one original voucher of user interaction from a user terminal through a network’, “extracting key information of the original voucher by using a preset recognition algorithm’, “setting a fuzzy indication value based on the quantitative information matrix, and determining a first clustering matrix, the first clustering matrix including a first preset count of first eigenvalue sets…”). The examiner disagrees.
Although Applicant characterizes the invention as a technical process, the examiner must respectfully disagree, as it is fundamentally directed to accounting, which is a financial concept and falls under the category of abstract ideas. Although the claimed steps may in fact be nonconventional, the invention is not eligible because the enumerated steps are abstract ideas or mathematical concepts, without significantly more. (SAP vs. Investpic, “The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”)
Applicant also argues that claim 18 is significantly more than an abstract idea. (Applicant’s 10/15/25 remarks, p. 35, “Furthermore, claim 18 recites “specific limitation[s] other than what is well- understood, routine, [and] conventional activity in the field,” and recites “unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.” Specifically, claim 18 recites features “determining a recognition confidence level based on a similarity of an actual item information to a recognition result; determining a data confidence level of a selected data combination through a confidence level assessment model, wherein the confidence level assessment model is a deep learning neural network model; an input of the confidence level assessment model includes the selected data combination, and an output of the confidence level assessment model includes the data confidence level of the selected data combination; the confidence level assessment model is trained by a gradient descent manner based…”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The process described in claim 18 appears to be conventional techniques in the machine learning field to train a neural network. (See e.g., Sanderson, “Gradient descent, how neural networks learn”, 2017, https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/gradient-descent#the-cost-over-many-examples). Accordingly, the examiner does not consider this to be more than the application of mathematical concepts.
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 1-3,5,7,9-20 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 significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1,19,20 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of generating an accounting voucher which is a mental process. The claims recite the additional elements of a storage, processor, uploading scanning. But for the a storage, processor, uploading scanning the limitations on obtain original voucher, extract information, divide into set based on information, determine information matrix, determine target clustering, setting fuzzy indication, perform iterative update on clustering, determine affiliation matrix, calculate second clustering, calculate a distance value between clusters, determining original voucher and original voucher set, converting key information of original voucher into entry information, converting key information, generating initial bookkeeping voucher, obtaining target bookkeeping voucher, solving missing or incorrect records, sending and outputting target bookkeeping voucher is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions (fundamental economic activity). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims 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 element of a storage, processor, uploading scanning amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the voucher generating steps. The subject matter of claims 2/3 (determine information using an algorithm), 5 (information includes item information), 7 (calculating evaluation values of clusters) 9 (generating vouchers based on clustering center), 10 (determine prediction cohesion using trained machine learning cohesion model), 11 (determine first and second accuracy degree for temporary voucher), 12 (convert information using preset rule), 13 (determine accuracy based on matching values), 14 (determine standard matching values by normalization), 15 (use conversion rule based on voucher type), 16 (weighing accuracy based on second voucher type), 17 (determine generation reliability), 18 (determine recognition confidence with a neural network model and determine generation reliability based on confidences) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. Claims 10 and 18 introduce the concept of machine learning. However, at the level that machine learning is claimed, it amounts to “applying” an abstract idea in a technical environment rather than an improvement to technology. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights