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
This Office Action is in response to the amendment entered on 6/3/2025.
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
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending on this application.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment made on claims 8, 16 and 20, the rejection under 325 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-12 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10:
The amended independent claims integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, amended Claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements include (1) a transaction embedding including numerical values in a multidimensional space that captures contextual information related to a transaction and (2) an entity embedding including numerical values in a multidimensional space that captures contextual information associated with the entity, which improves the performance of automated data entry systems. In particular, by utilizing the transaction embedding that captures contextual information related to a transaction and the entity embedding that captures contextual information associated with the entity, better comparison between the transaction and entity is achieved, leading to improved processing speed in automated data entry systems and reduced instances of misidentifying or failing to identify a correct entity compared to a text-string matching approach. Further, by utilizing the transaction embedding and the entity embedding to determine a first score and a second score, and by identifying a candidate entity based on the first score and the second score, the candidate entity identified not only matches the transaction, but also has likelihood of interacting with the organization associated with the transaction, thereby improving the prediction accuracy in automated data entry systems. Further, consistent with the discussion during the Examiner interview, Claim 1 is amended to include the additional element of transmitting the identified candidate entity to a graphical user interface for display to a user, which improves the user experience when using data entry systems by reducing the time and effort required to input data, which in turn improved the productivity and efficiency of the user while using data entry systems.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding points (1) and (2), neither one of those features are additional elements, they are part of the mental processes claimed and have been rejected as such and therefore, they do not serve to show integration into a practical application or “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. .As per the argument above, the claims are directed to a comparison between a transaction and an entity. This kind of analysis of data can be performed mentally or with the aid of pencil and paper. The data entry system is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea of comparing data. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that could be performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, then the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
While the argument states that the invention is directed to improving the prediction accuracy in automated data entry systems, the claims do not describe any data entry system. The data entry system is just a computer used as a tool to perform a process that could be performed mentally. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of comparing data rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Regarding the argument “Claim 1 is amended to include the additional element of transmitting the identified candidate entity to a graphical user interface for display to a user, which improves the user experience when using data entry systems by reducing the time and effort required to input data, which in turn improved the productivity and efficiency of the user while using data entry systems”, the claim does not recite a data entry system or require any input of data from a user. The alleged improvement is not reflected in the claim. This limitation is claimed in a generic manner and amounts to merely outputting data as explained in the rejection below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 10:
Applicant argues that the instant claims are similar to “Ex parte Lee M. Silver, Adam Cohn, and Ari Julian Silver, Appeal 2021-003962, at 15 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 09, 2022), the PTAB found that although "there are mental processes or mathematical concepts in the independent claims or their dependents, these improve the claimed process of 'determining likelihood of unconceived progenies of two potential parents having a phenotype' and therefore are integrated into a practical application."
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem solved in the case referenced above and the instant claims are not the same or even related. Therefore, the findings on that case are not relevant to the issues in the instant application.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11:
Assuming arguendo that Claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception (which the Applicant does not concede), Claim 1 is still patent eligible under Step 2B of the Alice Test. A claim as a whole provides an inventive concept when the claim includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05. A claim involves inventive concept if the claim includes limitations that provide improvement to any other technology or technical field. Id. Here, the additional elements of the transaction embedding and the entity embedding provide improvement to automated data entry systems as explained above and hence provide an inventive concept. Further, a claim involves an inventive concept if it includes features that are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field. Id. Here, the Examiner has not shown that utilizing the feature of entity embeddings to determine a second score and identifying the candidate entity based on the second score is well-understood, routine and conventional. Consistent with the Applicant's assertion, in Ex parte Kyung Yang Park and Hoon Joon Jeong, Appeal 14/776,079, at 6 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 06, 2021), in concluding that the claim recites features the not well-understood, routine and conventional, the PTAB indicated that,
The prosecution history is consistent with the conclusion that the steps as an ordered combination provide an inventive concept. During the prosecution of the application, Appellant distinguished the claims from the cited prior art in the § 103 rejection on the basis of the ID information and UDP communications." Id at 17.
Similarly, in the current case, in the response to the Office Action dated March 3rd, 2025, the Applicant distinguished the claims from the prior art under 35 USC 103 on the basis of the second score. Therefore, it is evident that the features of utilizing the entity embeddings to determine the second score and identifying the at least one candidate entity based on the first score and the second score is not well-understood and conventional, and hence the claim recites an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 1 as a whole provides an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1 is patent-eligible under step 2B of the Alice test.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations cited in the argument above were not rejected as additional elements, they were rejected as part of the mental process to which the claim is directed to. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is "fully apart" from the question of whether it is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981), MPEP 2106.05(d). The rejection has identified the additional elements in the claim and has provided explanation as to why they either alone or in combination do not provide a practical application to the judicial exception or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page 11:
Furthermore, in the Memo from the USPTO dated August 4, 2025, "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" (hereinafter "2025 Memo"), the Office indicates that, in order to assess whether a recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception, "[the examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement." 2025 Memo, p. 4 (emphasis added). It is respectfully submitted that, in the present case, the application as filed discloses in paragraphs [0018]-[0022] the improvements to automated data entry systems in terms of the prediction accuracy of a matching entity and improved user experience, and the amended Claim 1 clearly reflects the disclosed improvements.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any data entry system. At best, the claim, and the cited paragraphs in the argument above, seem to be directed to comparing data to determine if an entity performed a transaction which is a process that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. The use of a computer to perform this analysis is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,989,660. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter and limitations as claimed in claims 1-18 of ‘660. Since claims 1-18 of ‘660 recite additional limitations at least in independent claims 1, 9, and 17, claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are directed to a broader invention than claimed in the ‘660 patent and are therefore rendered obvious by the reference claims.
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.
Step 1 analysis for all claims:
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method (process), claims 10-18 are directed to a system (manufacture) and claims 19-20 are directed to a method (process). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites:
generate a transaction embedding based on the encoded transaction data, the transaction embedding including numerical values in a multidimensional space that captures contextual information of the financial transaction. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses looking at transaction information in a table format (encoded data) and determining numerical values for the entries in the table so that useful information can be identified to understand the meaning of the data (contextual information).
determine a first score that captures similarity between the transaction embedding and each entity embedding associated with a global list of entities and organizations, each entity embedding including numerical values in a multidimensional space that captures contextual information of a respective entity. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses comparing the transaction embedding to a list of entity embeddings to determine what entity on the list is most likely associated with a transaction.
determine a second score that captures a probability of interaction between the organization and the global list of entities based on an organization embedding and entity embeddings that capture profile data associated with the organization and the entities of the global list of entities. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses comparing the organization’s profile and the entity’s profile to infer how likely it is that there is an interaction between them.
identify at least one candidate entity from the global list of entities that corresponds to the financial transaction based on the first score and the second score, such that the at least one candidate entity matches the encoded transaction data based on the first score and has a likelihood to interact with the organization based on the second score
returning the at least one candidate entity As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses comparing both scores to select one of the entities.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
invoking at least one machine learning model to infer. The machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving encoded transaction data generated by a system that processes a financial transaction between an organization and an entity. As drafted, this amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
returning the at least one candidate entity. As drafted, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
transmitting the at least one candidate entity to a graphical user interface for display to a user. This limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of financial transaction amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
invoking at least one machine learning model to infer. The machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving encoded transaction data generated by a system that processes a financial transaction between an organization and an entity. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
returning the at least one candidate entity. This limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
transmitting the at least one candidate entity to a graphical user interface for display to a user. This limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The limitation of financial transaction amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claims 2 and 11
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites generating the global list of entities by deduplicating an initial set of entities. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses analyzing a set of entities and determining if the entities are repeated.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 3 and 12
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites wherein generating the global list of entities further comprises generating the entity embeddings for a configurable number of entities of the initial set of entities. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses deciding what embeddings better represent an entity.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 4 and 13
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The clam recites segmenting the entities of the global list of entites into one or more groups of entities based on the entity embeddings and similarity between the entity embeddings. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses comparing the embeddings of each entity and grouping the entities based on how similar they are.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 5 and 14
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites:
determining text distances between each entity in the at least one of the one or more groups of entities. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining how different are the texts describing the entities on a group.
removing one or more entities when a text distance between a first entity and a second entity satisfies a deduplication threshold. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses removing an entity when the text is too different.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 6 and 15
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites:
identifying at least one entity alias for an entity in at least one group. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses looking at the names in a list of entities and determining that one entity is known by different names (Robert and Bob)
adding the at least one entity alias to an alias list. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses adding the names identified as aliases for an entity to a list.
deduplicating the at least one entity alias. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses looking at a list of entities to determine if the alias added was already in the list and removing it.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites: determining an inner product of the organization embedding and an entity embedding to determine a likelihood that the organization and the entity interact. This limitation is directed to a mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The claim recites executing a collaborative filter to create the organization embedding and the entity embeddings from the profile data. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As set forth above, the limitation “executing a collaborative filter to create the organization embedding and the entity embeddings from the profile data” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 8, 16 and 20
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim depends on claim 1 and therefore is directed to the same abstract ideas set forth above regarding claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The claim recites “generating the organization embedding based on transactional data absent entity interactions associated with the organization”. The limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (transactional data). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
As set forth above the limitation of “generating the organization embedding based on transactional data absent data regarding use of one or more entities” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claims 9 and 18
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim depends on claim 1 and therefore is directed to the same abstract ideas set forth above regarding claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites “wherein receiving encoded transaction data comprises receiving a string of alphanumeric characters that omits entity name” which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein receiving encoded transaction data comprises receiving a string of alphanumeric characters that omits entity name” amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Claim 10
The claim recites all the limitations of claim 1 and it is rejected for being directed to the same abstract ideas and additional elements. The claim recites some further additional elements that are addressed as follows:
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim recites the additional elements of “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
As discussed above, the additional elements of “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim depends on claim 10 and is directed to the same abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim recites the additional element of “wherein the instructions further cause the system to fill a field in a graphical user interface associated with the transaction with the candidate entity” which amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the instructions further cause the system to fill a field in a graphical user interface associated with the transaction with the candidate entity” which amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Claim 19
The claim recites all the limitations of claim 1 and it is rejected for being directed to the same abstract ideas and additional elements. It is noted that this claim recites “at least one candidate entity match from the global list of entities based on the first score and the second score” This encompasses comparing the two scores to see if there is a matching between the entity and the entities on the list. The claim recites some further additional elements that are addressed as follows:
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim recites the additional element of “filling a field in a graphical user interface associated with the transaction with the candidate entity match” which amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
As discussed above, the additional element of “filling a field in a graphical user interface associated with the transaction with the candidate entity match” which amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
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 Omar F Fernandez Rivas whose telephone number is (571)272-2589. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30-3:00.
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, David Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-4150. 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.
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights