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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed10/12/2023. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15 were amended. Claims 3, 5, 9, 12, 14 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Even if one were to look beyond the Examiner's erroneous definition, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but rather to an improvement in the functioning of a computer and data processing field. The MPEP clarifies that claims directed to a specific improvement in computer capabilities or network functionality are not abstract. Claim 1 provides a technical solution to the problem of processing cross-border resource data where a single mode (e.g., Direct Mail) may cause congestion, compliance issues, or processing failures. Specifically, claim 1 introduces a "Mode Switching Logic" and a "Voucher Splitting Mechanism" that: 1. Automatically analyzes specific parameters ("update identification information,""quantity information,""voucher resource threshold"); and 2. Dynamically reconfigures the data by splitting a single voucher object into two distinct objects (first and second vouchers) and assigning different processing modes to each resulting object. This is a specific software implementation-a "particular manner" of handling data-that optimizes the processing of cross-border resources. It allows the system to handle complex scenarios (where a resource exceeds a threshold) by technically dividing the data payload and applying parallel or distinct processing modes ("direct mail" vs. "personal express"). This is not a fundamental economic practice or a method of organizing human activity (like hedging risk or managing a meeting). It is a technical rule set for transforming data states to improve system efficiency and compliance processing. Therefore, the claims are integrated into a practical application. They do not merely invoke a computer to perform a business practice; they recite a specific series of data manipulation steps (obtaining, comparing, splitting, updating mode tags) that improve how the cross-border data processing system functions”, (see remarks , pg. 10-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for cross border resource voucher and obtaining voucher resource and sending voucher resource, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can obtaining voucher resource and communicate the voucher resource. The computing elements such as “data processing in claim 1; data processing, processor, memory in claim 8; computer-readable storage medium, computer program, data processing in claim 10” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to an improvement in the claims "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . Accordingly, in combination, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for data processing for cross-border resource voucher and obtaining voucher resource to the cross-border resource voucher.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 10 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “obtaining a cross-border resource voucher and obtaining a voucher resource corresponding to the cross-border resource voucher, and sending the voucher resource; receiving a resource judgment result corresponding to the voucher resource, and obtaining mode data corresponding to the cross-border resource voucher, wherein an initial value of the mode data is consistent with direct mail mode data; updating the mode data from the direct mail mode data to personal express mail mode data according to the resource judgment result, to obtain a target cross-border resource voucher; and sending the target cross-border resource voucher, and receiving a data feedback result corresponding to the target cross-border resource voucher, so as to process the target cross- border resource voucher according to the data feedback result, wherein updating the mode data from the direct mail mode data to personal express mail mode data comprises: obtaining update identification information corresponding to the cross-border resource voucher, and obtaining a plurality of update information corresponding to the update identification information; updating the mode data from the direct mail mode data to the personal express mail mode data, in response to determining that the update identification information matches one of the plurality of update information, wherein the update information comprises second update information; updating the mode data from the direct mail mode data to the personal express mail mode data, in response to determining that the update identification information matches one of the plurality of update information comprising: obtaining quantity information corresponding to the cross-border resource voucher, in response to determining that the update identification information matches the second update information; obtaining a voucher resource threshold and resource corresponding to the cross-border resource voucher, in response to determining that the quantity information is plural; splitting the cross-border resource voucher into a first cross-border resource voucher and a second cross-border resource voucher according to the voucher resource threshold, in response to determining that the resource is less than the voucher resource threshold, wherein a first voucher resource corresponding to the first cross-border resource voucher is less than or equal to the voucher resource threshold; maintaining first mode data corresponding to the first cross-border resource voucher as the direct mail mode data, and updating second mode data corresponding to the second cross-border resource voucher from the direct mail mode data to the personal express mail mode data” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (data processing in claim 1; data processing, processor, memory in claim 8; computer-readable storage medium, computer program, data processing in claim 10) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (data processing in claim 1; data processing, processor, memory in claim 8; computer-readable storage medium, computer program, data processing in claim 10). The data processing in claim 1; data processing, processor, memory in claim 8; computer-readable storage medium, computer program, data processing in claim 10, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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 claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the data processing in claims 2, 4, 6-7 and 11, 13 and 15-16; processor in claims 11, 13 and 15-16, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights