DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 5/13/2026, Applicant, on 8/13/2026, amended Claims 1, 9, and 17, and cancelled Claims 2, 10, and 18. Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 20-23 are pending in this action and have been considered in full and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant recites the amended limitations of the claims, points to paragraph [0048], states that the structure of the recited in-memory database including the universal journal table, component breakdown table, and the arrangement are particular, that this is an improvement to the database itself through the structure and operation of the database arrangement itself, and states that there is no prima facia ineligibility of the independent claims. Examiner disagrees as a prima facie case has been made in the rejection below as the claims recite clear abstractions of both a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. This is stated clearly by the office action, and the use of multiple tables in memory to save information such as in a component breakdown table, which is an extension ledger of the universal journal table, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims does not change the fact there are two abstract ideas which are identified in the Claims. Further, at best this is utilization of current technologies to analyze and transmit data, as there is no improvement to the tables, ledger, any technology, or technological process, alone or in combination, as there is no detail as to how this improves the database or system, and thus “Applying It” similar to Alice, not practically integrated, nor significantly more, and not eligible by the MPEP. Paragraph [0048] of Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0048] In some examples, a single entry or entries at the component breakdown table may correspond to more than one transaction entry at the universal journal table 114. For example, similar transactions may utilize transaction entries at the universal journal table 114 having the same component breakdown ID. In this way, storage use may be reduced. For example, storing the cost, environmental metric, and other component data at the component breakdown table 116 as additional columns in the universal journal table 114 may involve duplicate data storage and/or other more complex and resource-intensive storage optimization techniques.”
Which gives no detail as to how these would interact with each other to provide any improvement. This is utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
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.
Alice - Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to the limitations for receiving first transaction data, the first transaction data associated with a first transaction including acquisition of a first component of a first component type, the first transaction data describing an indicator of the first component, a cost of the first component of a first component type, and a first environmental metric associated with the first component (Receiving and Analyzing the Collected Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), writing a first transaction entry to a universal journal table, the first transaction entry comprising a description of the first transaction and a component breakdown key (Transmitting and Storing the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgement, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), writing a first component breakdown entry to a component breakdown table, the component breakdown entry comprising a first field indicating the component breakdown key, a second field indicating the first component, and a third field indicating the environmental metric associated with the first component, the component breakdown table being an extension ledger of the universal journal table (Transmitting and Storing the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgement, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), receiving second transaction data, the second transaction data associated with a second transaction including a second component of the first component type (Receiving and Analyzing the Collected Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), writing a second transaction entry to the universal journal table, the second transaction entry comprising an indication of the second component and the component breakdown key, the first component breakdown entry corresponding to both the first transaction entry and the second transaction entry (Transmitting and Storing the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgement, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), after writing the first component breakdown entry to the component breakdown table, receiving an updated first environmental metric associated with the first component (Analyzing and Storing the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and updating the first component breakdown entry based on the updated first environmental metric (Analyzing and Storing the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking transactions for Costing purposes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, database management system, ERP application, processor, and a computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information in order to Manage Transactions/Commercial Interactions for Costing purposes. For example, writing a first component breakdown into a table comprising breakdown and environmental metrics encompasses a supervisor, manager, or analyst receiving information from a spreadsheet for transactions and writing down where each of those transactions should be placed, something any person does to track tax or transactional information, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Transactions, a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Cost purposes, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, in-memory database management system, ERP application, processors, and computer readable media are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0090]Results of the accounting ERP system 332 including, for example, environmental metrics for one or more products, can be provided to a user 724 via one or more client applications 728A, 728B, 728N. In the example of FIG. 7, the user 724 executes a client application 728A on a user computing device 726. The user computing device 726 may be or include any suitable computing device including, for example, a tablet computer, a mobile telephone, a laptop computer, etc. The client application 728A provides the user 724 with a UI 722 that includes various environmental metrics determined as described herein. In this way, the user 724 can access the DBMS 732 to receive environmental metrics generated with data from one or more of the data sources 706, 708, 710, 712 without the need to modify the data sources 706, 708, 710, 712 or directly access the data sources 706, 708, 710, 712.”
Which states that any computer, desktop, mobile phone, etc. can be used to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the systems, processors, etc., nor the receiving, storing, or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4-8, 12-16, and 20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements and any being used being highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 21-23 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a hub application and an environmental management computing system which are highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 20-23 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Godfrey (U.S. Publication No. 2024/016,1216) in view of Kennis (U.S. Publication No. 2008/008,2374), and Sarferaz (U.S. Publication No. 2021/024,1170). Godfrey, a method and system for efficiently activating with multiple interacting pipelines, teaches a system for using a database management system to post a transaction, executing an enterprise resource planning (ERP) application, receiving, by the ERP application, first transaction data, the first transaction data associated with a first transaction including acquisition of a first component of a first component type, the first transaction data describing an indicator of the first component, a cost of the first component of a first component type, and a first environmental metric associated with the first component, writing, by the ERP application, a first transaction entry to a universal journal table of the database management system, the first transaction entry comprising a description of the first transaction and a component breakdown key, and writing, by the ERP application, a first component breakdown entry to a component breakdown table of the database management system, the component breakdown entry comprising a first entry indicating a component breakdown key, a second entry indicating the first component, and a third entry indicating the environmental metric associated with the first component, receiving second transaction data, the second transaction data associated with a second transaction including a second component of the first component type, and writing, to the universal journal table of the database management system, a second transaction entity comprising an indication of the second component and the component breakdown keys, which include a description, a detailed breakdown information, where cost components of the breakdown, and where environmental factors are recorded, but it does not explicitly state fields being used within the database, or updating of the environmental data and the breakdown entries based on this updated information. Kennis, a system and method for mapping transaction data to common ontology for compliance monitoring, teaches transactional data which is stored in tables and fields by name based on the mapping, which utilizes ERP and environmental data, and environmental information which is extracted for use in the ERP system. Sarferaz, a system and method for machine learning lifecycle management, teaches training metrics being used such as environmental data and transactions in order to manage development of infrastructure, and breakdowns of the level of composite results, but does not explicitly teach the updating of environmental metrics using updated first component breakdown entries. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches the updating of environmental metrics using updated first component breakdown entries, and the writing of transaction entries to a universal journal, in conjunction with an ERP application, along with the other limitations of the Claims, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 20-23 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240161216 A1
Godfrey; George S.
Method, System, and Computer Program Product for Efficiently Activating with Multiple Interacting Pipelines
US 20210241170 A1
Sarferaz; Siar
Machine Learning Lifecycle Management
US 20080082374 A1
KENNIS; Peter H. et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MAPPING TRANSACTION DATA TO COMMON ONTOLOGY FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING
US 20210286604 A1
Peccoud; Jean
METHODS, SERVICES, SYSTEMS, AND ARCHITECTURES TO OPTIMIZE LABORATORY PROCESSES
US 20170330121 A1
SULLIVAN; CRAIG et al.
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR EXECUTION OF MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS PROCESSES
US 20110208663 A1
Kennis; Peter H. et al.
EXTRACTION OF TRANSACTION DATA FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING
US 20110004513 A1
Hoffberg; Steven M.
SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20100070421 A1
Fazal; Thomas et al.
DATA WAREHOUSE SYSTEM
US 20090313149 A1
HAHN; Wolfgang et al.
BUDGETARY LEDGER
US 20080195579 A1
Kennis; Peter H. et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EXTRACTION OF TRANSACTION DATA FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING
US 20070061266 A1
Moore; James F. et al.
Security systems and methods for use with structured and unstructured data
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 10/6/2026
Prosecution Insights