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 Claims
Claims 1-9, 11 and 13-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Even assuming arguendo that certain recited limitations touch upon abstract ideas, the amended claims integrate any such exceptions into a practical application because they apply, rely on, or use the exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The meaningful limits include, at minimum:
. Specific verification logic - determining a target reimbursement category from a
plurality of categories, verifying structured element information (time, location, quota, compliance) against predefined value ranges, and rendering a verification result based on that comparison;
" A hardware-embedded rule engine comprising logic circuitry configured to parse and compare the element information against the predefined value ranges.
The claimed invention addresses the specific computer-related problem identified in the specification at [0002]: "bill item type errors" and the cumbersome, error-prone nature of manual reimbursement data entry. By automating the structured validation of billing data against dynamic institutional rules, the claims improve the functioning of the data processing system itself-not merely a business process. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvements to data processing functionality are not abstract).
Furthermore, the hardware-embedded rule engine limitation places the claimed verification logic into a particular machine-a logic-circuit-based engine (e.g., FPGA, ASIC) that is specifically configured to perform the recited parsing and comparison operations. This is not a generic computer performing routine functions; it is a specific hardware structure dedicated to the claimed verification tasks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims that address a challenge particular to the Internet are not abstract).
Office Response:
Regarding the asserted meaningful limits, MPEP 2106.05(e) states that:
The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole. The considerations described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) are meaningful limitations when they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or when they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. This broad label signals that there can be other considerations besides those described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) that when added to a judicial exception amount to meaningful limitations that can transform a claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4. The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184, 187, 209 USPQ at 7, 8. In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85.
When evaluating whether additional elements meaningfully limit the judicial exception, it is particularly critical that examiners consider the additional elements both individually and as a combination. When an additional element is considered individually by an examiner, the additional element may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" if it meaningfully limits the judicial exception, and may also add a meaningful limitation by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. However, even in the situation where the individually-viewed elements do not add significantly more or integrate the exception, those additional elements when viewed in combination may render the claim eligible.
Based upon the MPEP above, the Office asserts that the claims are more like those in Alice than those of Diamon v. Diehr, because they merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The verification steps themselves are not inextricably tied to computer implementation or a technical problem associated with a withholding process. A withholding process itself is not inextricably tied to a computer.
The applicant asserts that 0002 discloses a computer-related problem but the Office is unconvinced. 0002 merely states that the reimbursement process is cumbersome, errors usually occur and requires much time and energy. This paragraph says nothing about how these problems are the result of some computer implementation but suggests that efficiency is the core issue. Per MPEP 2105(f) "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.”
Applicant argues
Even if the claims were considered to be directed to a judicial exception, the claims contain significantly more than the exception itself. The additional elements-the verification step and the hardware-embedded rule engine with logic circuitry-are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the relevant art.
As recognized in the specification at [0023]-[0024], conventional expense reimbursement systems lacked automated multi-factor verification against time, location, quota, and compliance constraints. The claimed verification engine performs structured data parsing and threshold-based comparison across multiple dimensions simultaneously-far beyond simple arithmetic or basic database lookups.
Moreover, the hardware-embedded rule engine limitation ensures that the claims are not merely a "generic computer implementation" of an abstract idea. The specification at [0075]- [0076] expressly contemplates that the claimed method steps can be programmed into hardware circuits such as PLDs, FPGAs, and ASICs, meaning the claimed invention is not limited to software running on a generic computer, but rather encompasses a specific hardware architecture that implements the verification logic. This is exactly the type of "particular machine" that confers patent eligibility under Alice step 2B.
Office Response:
The applicant appears to add a generic computer component or a specially programmed computer and asserts that this is significantly more or not well-understood, routine and conventional. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). MPEP 2106.07(b)(3).
Applicant argues:
Applicant further notes that the amended claims do not preempt the alleged judicial exceptions. Others remain free to perform expense control verification using different technical means-e.g., manual review, different hardware architectures, or alternative algorithmic approaches-without infringing the claims. The claims merely capture one specific technical solution to the problems identified in the specification. See MPEP § 2106.04(b)(2).
Office Response:
If applicant argues that the claim is specific and does not preempt all applications of the exception, the examiner should reconsider Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, e.g., to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. If an examiner still determines that the claim is directed to a judicial exception, the examiner should then reconsider in Step 2B whether the additional elements in combination (as well as individually) amount to an inventive concept, e.g., because they are more than the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional elements. Such reconsideration is appropriate because, although preemption is not a standalone test for eligibility, it remains the underlying concern that drives the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 2106.07(b)(4).
In the present case the claims do not improve the functioning of a computer by adding generic computer implementation to an entrusted withholding process which requires associating a payment order with a category, verifying that the payment order falls within a value range and if so, passing verification. The verification is performed by a specially configured computer which parses and compares element information against the value range. None of these functions speak to an improvement in computer functionality. Regarding step 2B, the elements as a whole and in combination merely add the words “apply it” to the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
An entrusted withholding processing method, comprising:
scanning, by a camera of a code scanning device configured by a merchant, a
reimbursement code according to an access request submitted by a mobile terminal to obtain a payment order of an institution member, the code scanning device being an electronic device having the camera configured to scan the reimbursement code when displayed on a mobile terminal;
performing expense control verification on the payment order of the institution member based on an expense control rule configured for the reimbursement code of an institution , wherein performing the expense control verification comprises:
determining a target reimbursement category that matches the payment order in at least one reimbursement category of the expense control rule;
verifying whether element information recorded in the payment order falls within a value range of an expense control element associated with the target reimbursement category; and
upon determining that the element information falls within the value range of the expense control element, determining that the payment order passes the verification on the target reimbursement category;
upon determining that the expense control verification is passed, detecting whether the reimbursement code is bound to a fund account opened by the institution on a financial platform; and
upon determining that the reimbursement code is bound to the fund account opened by the institution on the financial platform, generating an entrusted withholding request of the payment order, and submitting the entrusted withholding request to the financial platform, to perform entrusted withholding processing of the payment order based on the fund account;
wherein the expense control verification is performed by a hardware-embedded rule engine configured with the expense control rule, the rule engine comprising logic circuitry for parsing and comparing the element information against the predefined value range.
The underlined portions of the claims represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions including sales activities since the claims are directed to the processing of a payment order.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the reasons presented above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and adds additional elements representing adding the words “apply it”, or the like, such as a bill application link, a QR code and the like, and an e-bill. As a whole, and in combination, the claims comprise an abstract idea with the words “Apply it”, or the like.
Claims 13 and 14 include the recited abstract idea above and include additional limitations including a device comprising a processor and non-transitory storage medium executed by a processor and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
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 571-273-8300.
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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
