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 reply to the application filed on 10/09/2023.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-19 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.
In the instant case, claim 1 directed to a system.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “using mathematical algorithms” which is a grouped under “Mathematical concepts” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 recites “employing … algorithms to dynamically refine and adapt reconciliation rules rooted in evolving transaction data.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claim 1 such as “machine learning” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, it does not provide a practical application.
And, as the additional element does no more than provide a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “employing said … to identify and reconcile discrepancies across multiple ledgers and sub-ledgers within an organization or between multiple organizations.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of using mathematical algorithms. The additional element of the “reconciliation system” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 3 recites “with traditional rule-based reconciliation tools, thereby leveraging the strengths of both methodologies” however this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein said algorithms are structured to analyze and anticipate potential reconciliation challenges based on transaction patterns.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the identified challenges encompass discrepancies that arise due to factors including foreign currency exchange rates, intercompany transactions, and different tax regulations across jurisdictions” which is a form of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practice. It has been held that adding one abstract idea (managing personal behavior or relationships) to another (mathematical concept) produces a claim that is no less abstract (MPEP 2106.04 II. 2).
Claim 6 recites “wherein … to refine its reconciliation approach based on historical data and patterns” Further describes the abstract idea of using mathematical algorithms. The additional element of “continuous machine learning enables the system” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how continuous machine learning enables the system. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites “further equipped to propose alterations to reconciliation rules in response to the identification of certain transaction patterns or anomalies.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “implemented with a … to address exceptions in the reconciliation process” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element of “capability to offer users automated suggestions” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how users are offered automated suggestions. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites “designed to enhance unmatched transaction data with supplementary contextual insights.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites additional element of “provisioned to deliver users with instantaneous feedback and updates related to ongoing reconciliation tasks.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how provisioned the system. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 11 recites “… to detect potential fraudulent activities through comprehensive analysis of transactional anomalies.” which is a form of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practice. It has been held that adding one abstract idea (fundamental economic practice) to another (mathematical concept) produces a claim that is no less abstract (MPEP 2106.04 II. 2). Claim 11 recites additional element of “accentuating its ability”, however this is no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how accentuating is ability is performed. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the potential fraud detection mechanisms are tailored based on specific industry standards.” which is a form of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practice. It has been held that adding one abstract idea (fundamental economic practice) to another (mathematical concept) produces a claim that is no less abstract. Therefore, claim 12 is also non-statutory. (MPEP 2106.04(2))
Claim 13 recites “conceptualized in a manner that seamlessly overlays upon existing reconciliation frameworks without the necessity for complete replacements.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of “wherein the integral process of integration is facilitated via API interactions.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how the “integral process of integration is facilitated via the API interactions”. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 15 recites “possessing the capability to produce intricate reports detailing reconciliation results, identified discrepancies, and subsequent resolutions.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of “structured to incorporate user feedback, which in turn refines and hones the underlying machine learning model's predictive capabilities” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how the “refines and hones the underlying machine learning model's predictive capabilities”. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 17 recites “integrated with …, optimizing the interpretation and understanding of textual financial data” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “natural language processing tools” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 18 recites “… for transactions stemming from a variety of financial platforms” which is a form of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practice. It has been held that adding one abstract idea (fundamental economic practice) to another (mathematical concept) produces a claim that is no less abstract (MPEP 2106.04 II. 2). Claim 18 recites the additional elements “architected in a versatile manner to accommodate reconciliation processes…” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how the “architected in a versatile manner to accommodate reconciliation processes…”. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 19 recites “emphasizing the incorporation of multi-factor authentication processes ensuring a fortified and secure data reconciliation process.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). It has been held that adding one abstract idea (managing personal behavior or relationships) to another (mathematical concept) produces a claim that is no less abstract (MPEP 2106.04 II. 2).
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
For example,
Claim 1 recites "... dynamically refine ... and ... rooted in evolving transaction data". The phrasing is narrative and "dynamically" and "rooted in evolving transaction data" are relative terms ( MPEP 2173.05(b) I, III iv).
Claim 2 recites "A method for employing said reconciliation system to identify and reconcile discrepancies across multiple ledgers and sub-ledgers within an organization or between multiple organizations.” While claim 2 refers to the "reconciliation system" of claim 1, it is not indicated as a dependent of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites "... thereby leveraging the strengths of both methodologies." This language is narrative and "strengths" is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b) I, III iv). Also, the claim does not identify what the methodologies are.
Claim 9 recites "designed to enhance ... with supplementary contextual rights" the language "designed to enhance" is narrative and relative (MPEP 2173.05(b) I, III iv).
Claim 12 recites “the potential fraud detection mechanisms are tailored based on specific industry standards” however the term “potential fraud detection mechanisms” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites "conceptualized in a manner that seamlessly overlays upon existing reconciliation frameworks without the necessity for complete replacements". This language is narrative. Further "seamlessly overlays" and "necessity for complement replacements" are relative terms (MPEP 2173.05(b) I, III iv).
Claim 19 recites “emphasizing the incorporation of multi-factor authentication processes ensuring a fortified and secure data reconciliation process”. This language is narrative.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sells et al. (US 2023/0043702 A1)
Regarding Claim 1
Sells discloses:
A reconciliation system employing machine learning algorithms to dynamically refine and adapt reconciliation rules rooted in evolving transaction data. [0438]
Regarding Claim 2
Sells discloses:
A method for employing said reconciliation system to identify and reconcile discrepancies across multiple ledgers and sub-ledgers within an organization or between multiple organizations. [0438]
Regarding Claim 3
Sells discloses:
A method for integrating the reconciliation system of claim 1 with traditional rule-based reconciliation tools, thereby leveraging the strengths of both methodologies. [0438]
Regarding Claim 4
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein said algorithms are structured to analyze and anticipate potential reconciliation challenges based on transaction patterns. [0482]
Regarding Claim 5
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the identified challenges encompass discrepancies that arise due to factors including foreign currency exchange rates, intercompany transactions, and different tax regulations across jurisdictions. [0228], [0438] and [0472]
Regarding Claim 6
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein continuous machine learning enables the system to refine its reconciliation approach based on historical data and patterns. [0472]
Regarding Claim 7
Sells discloses:
The method of claim 2, further equipped to propose alterations to reconciliation rules in response to the identification of certain transaction patterns or anomalies. [0438]
Regarding Claim 8
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, implemented with a capability to offer users automated suggestions to address exceptions in the reconciliation process. [0435], [0438]
Regarding Claim 9
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, designed to enhance unmatched transaction data with supplementary contextual insights. [0554]
Regarding Claim 10
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, provisioned to deliver users with instantaneous feedback and updates related to ongoing reconciliation tasks. [0540]
Regarding Claim 11
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, accentuating its ability to detect potential fraudulent activities through comprehensive analysis of transactional anomalies. [0621]
Regarding Claim 12
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the potential fraud detection mechanisms are tailored based on specific industry standards. [0621]
Regarding Claim 13
Sells discloses:
The method of claim 3, conceptualized in a manner that seamlessly overlays upon existing reconciliation frameworks without the necessity for complete replacements. [0438]
Regarding Claim 14
Sells discloses
The method of claim 3, wherein the integral process of integration is facilitated via API interactions. [0239]
Regarding Claim 15
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, possessing the capability to produce intricate reports detailing reconciliation results, identified discrepancies, and subsequent resolutions. [0438]
Regarding Claim 16
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, structured to incorporate user feedback, which in turn refines and hones the underlying machine learning model's predictive capabilities. [0438]
Regarding Claim 17
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, integrated with natural language processing tools, optimizing the interpretation and understanding of textual financial data. [0438]
Regarding Claim 18
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, architected in a versatile manner to accommodate reconciliation processes for transactions stemming from a variety of financial platforms. [0248]
Regarding Claim 19
Sells discloses:
The system of claim 1, emphasizing the incorporation of multi-factor authentication processes, ensuring a fortified and secure data reconciliation process. ((fig. 57) enter password with face id)
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Mallela et al. (US 2022/0374880 A1) Teaches: distributed ledger based multi-currency clearing and settlement.
Richter et al. (US 2023/0196308 A1) Teaches: Method for data aggregation for transaction settlement using machine learning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on (571) 272-6709. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692