DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 17and 20.
Applicant cancelled claims 2 and 13.
Applicant previously cancelled claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15, and 18.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement by standardizing data. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology with the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (standardizing non-standard information) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to analyze non-standard information and standardize it. Nor is merely using an AI model for its intended purpose a practical application. Applicant merely notes the utility of the claims, which in and of itself does not amount to a practical application. There is no technical improvement from creating/generating an identifier for a non-standard transaction. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Applicant argued its claims are similar to those in Ex Parte Desjardins and Ex Parte Carmody. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. In those cases claims were found to be eligible because in those cases recited technical improvement to machine-learning systems themselves. For example in Desjardins the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. In Applicant’s claims there is no similar improvement to how the machine learning/AI model functions. Applicant merely notes the utility of the claims (i.e., adding an identifier to non-standardized data allows it to be processed) which in and of itself is not a technical improvement. Applicant merely taking data with missing information and using a computer to accomplish the task of adding the missing information.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as generating an identifier for a transaction.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11), machine (claims 12, 16, 17, 19), and manufacture/product (claim 20).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
training a model using initial training data;
deploy the model when a bootstrap method determines that a least squares error rate of the trained model is within a predetermined range;
generating a unique character string based on attribute information,
receiving a plurality of transactions,
wherein the plurality of transactions include a standard transaction and a non-standard transaction,
wherein each of the plurality of vendor [entities] operate independently,
process information of a unified format,
and wherein the standard transaction includes a set of predefined fields while the non-standard transaction is absent of the set of predefined fields;
determining whether a transaction is the standard transaction that has a predefined identifier that is recognizable provided beforehand and prior to receiving the transaction or the non-standard transaction that includes unstructured data does not have the predefined identifier that is recognizable and is unknown to beforehand and prior to receiving the transaction;
when the transaction is determined to be the standard transaction:
routing a plurality of vendor identifiers corresponding to the plurality of vendor [entities];
routing the predefined identifier assigned to the standard transaction;
using the predefined identifier to identify the standard transaction;
matching, among the plurality of vendor identifiers, a vendor identifier corresponding to the predefined identifier;
and consolidating the vendor identifier with the predefined identifier;
when the transaction is determined to be the non-standard transaction:
extracting attribute information from transaction information of the non-standard transaction;
routing the attribute information extracted from the transaction information of the non-standard transaction prior to storage;
extracting a plurality of attributes from the transaction information routed,
dynamically generating a character string using a combination of a plurality of attributes of the non-standard transaction,
wherein the plurality of attributes are concatenated prior to the combination to create a specific character string that indicates an association between the plurality of attributes,
and wherein the specific character string is created prior to sending the transaction information of the non-standard transaction;
transmitting the dynamically generated character string;
identifying among the plurality of vendor identifiers, a vendor identifier that corresponds with a set of attributes stored at a vendor device that matches with the plurality of attributes of the dynamically generated character string;
consolidating the vendor identifier with the dynamically generated character string for generating a unique consolidated identifier for the non-standard transaction,
where during the consolidating a relationship between the dynamically generated character string and the vendor identifier is established;
storing the unique consolidated identifier;
and transmitting the unique consolidated identifier for facilitation and tracking of post transaction activities using the unique consolidated identifier;
and updating, by retraining the model, to recognize an association between the set of attributes indicated in the unique consolidated identifier and attributes of various data records provided for automatically identifying a vendor identifier associated with subsequent unstructured data included in a non-standard transaction..
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the claims recite generating a unique consolidated identifier for a transaction (derivative contract). This is a commercial/legal interaction which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, training, deploying, and updating a model can be considered a Mental Process as well (in addition to its use in the commercial activity of identifying a merchant/vendor). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” or a Mental Process, then it recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a processor, a memory, downstream applications, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer program, a system, vendor devices, a central repository, a dynamic production code generator, a communication network, a server, an artificial intelligence (AI) model; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving a plurality of transactions,
transmitting the dynamically generated character string;
storing the unique consolidated identifier
and transmitting the unique consolidated identifier
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere sending and receiving of data, which courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, 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 as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor, a memory, downstream applications, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer program, a system, vendor devices, a central repository, a dynamic production code generator, a communication network, a server, an artificial intelligence (AI) model; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations of:
receiving a plurality of transactions,
transmitting the dynamically generated character string;
storing the unique consolidated identifier
and transmitting the unique consolidated identifier
amount to the sending and receiving data between devices, claimed at a high level of generality. These insignificant extra-solution activities are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the federal courts See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0029-0041], [0042-0059], about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 19 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 12. Therefore, claims 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 19 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 6 and 17 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 12. In addition, the recite the additional elements of
receiving a plurality of vendor identifiers corresponding to a plurality of data records;
when the transaction is determined to be the standard transaction, transmitting the pre-defined identifier to the plurality of vendors;
This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information. These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 19 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694