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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 03/16/2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statements have not been separately considered. A copy of the PTO-1449 is attached hereto.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in Remarks, pages 7-8 or 12) that without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection, and without prejudice or disclaimer, claims 1 has been amended to recite an integration module configured to enable data exchange with external systems and with order processing systems, wherein the integration module captures changes in data from the external systems using a change data capture mechanism, standardizes the captured data, allocates the standardized data into a plurality of purposive datastores optimized for retrieval based on at least one of data classification, access frequency, or computational workload, and transmits pricing and order data to the order processing systems using one or more application programming interfaces and XML and EDI integration, for accurate pricing application. Claims 8 and 15 have been similarly amended to recite capturing, by the integration module, changes in data from the external systems using a change data capture mechanism and transmitting, by the integration module, pricing and order data to the order processing systems using one or more application programming interfaces and XML and EDI integration. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims recite a specific computer mechanisms that the Office Action stated were missing and therefore are not directed merely to a business practice implemented on generic computer components.
In response to Applicant's arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that capturing changes in data from the external systems and transmitting pricing and order data does not take the claims out the method of organizing human activity grouping which includes "Commercial Interactions" (i.e. including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and/or "Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People" (i.e. including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) - but for the recitation of generic computer components used as tools to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant argues (in Remarks, page 8 of 12) that the Office Action acknowledged that claim 1 already recites standardized data allocation into purposive datastores, validation of pricing input data, algorithm selection, injection of computed pricing into an order prior to order confirmation, and synchronization with real-time order context data. However, the Office Action nevertheless concluded that the claims still "appear to sort data into different databases and retrieve the data from the databases" and suggested "providing more details or the mechanisms whereby the database or computer is improved." Applicant has amended the claims in direct response to that request. In particular, amended claim 1 now recites that the integration module captures changes in data from the external systems using a change data capture mechanism and transmits pricing and order data to the order processing systems using one or more application programming interfaces and XML and EDI integration. Independent claims 8 and 15 now recite the same mechanisms in method and computer-readable-medium form. These amendments require particular machine operations by which the claimed system performs near real-time special pricing in a heterogeneous enterprise environment. The amended claims require a front-end technical mechanism for obtaining real-time transactional changes, namely change data capture, and a back-end technical mechanism for transmitting computed pricing and order data into downstream order systems, namely application programming interfaces and XML/EDI integration. These are concrete data-ingestion and data-transfer mechanisms. They are not abstract business rules.
In response to Applicant arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims as currently amended do not provide a technical improvement to a technical problem by using data capture. For instance, there does not appear to be technology improvement in the data capture nor is the technology involved in data capture explained in the Specification such that it would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to acknowledge a technical improvement to the system or a technical field.
Applicant argues (in Remarks, pages 9-10 or 12) that the specification expressly supports these mechanisms. Paragraph [0108] explains that the RTDM module captures changes in data across multiple transactional systems in real time using a Change Data Capture mechanism. Paragraphs [0139] and [0143] further explain that captured data from transactional systems is processed and harmonized in real time through CDC-enabled integration with enterprise systems. Paragraph [0219] explains that System 1100 interacts with the order processing flow through the V7 Create Order API Async, V6 Create Order API, and Order Entry PCG API to transfer pricing information into order systems. Paragraph [0220] explains that XML and EDI integration provides the exchange of pricing-related data and order details between the SEEBURGER system and the Order Entry systems. Paragraphs [0246]-[0252] further explain that the APIs generate and process order objects and that XML and EDI submissions transmit order data for downstream fulfillment. Thus, the amended claims are now tied to expressly disclosed computer mechanisms for real- time capture, harmonization, and downstream application of pricing in an order-processing environment. The claims therefore are not directed merely to "special pricing strategies." The problem addressed by the invention is a technical one arising in distributed enterprise systems, namely that pricing-relevant data exists across heterogeneous external systems and must be captured, standardized, validated, and applied to active orders in near real time without relying on delayed manual handling or disconnected system updates. See paragraphs [0004]-[0013] and [0037]-[0042]. The amended claims recite a particular technical solution to that problem: changes are captured from transactional systems using CDC, standardized and allocated into purposive datastores, validated for pricing use, and then transmitted using APIs and XML/EDI integration so that computed pricing is injected into an order before confirmation while synchronized with live order context data. That is a concrete computer pipeline for handling and applying data in a distributed order-processing environment.
The Office Action stated that the prior claims merely improved the business problem through generic components. That characterization no longer fits the amended claims. The claims now recite not only pricing logic, but also the computer-specific mechanisms by which data is acquired and pushed through the system. A human cannot perform CDC-based capture of live transactional changes from heterogeneous enterprise systems, nor can a human perform API/XML/EDI transmission of synchronized pricing and order data into downstream order- processing interfaces in near real time. These are computer-specific operations, and they are recited in the claims as part of the claimed solution. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The claims do not broadly preempt special pricing. They are limited to a specific implementation in which the system uses CDC-based capture and API/XML/EDI-based transmission within a distributed pricing-and-order architecture. Those limitations impose meaningful technical constraints on how the claimed result is achieved.
In response to Applicant arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the claims as currently amended do not provide a technical improvement to a technical problem by using data capture. For instance, there does not appear to be technology improvement in the data capture nor is the technology involved in data capture explained in the Specification such that it would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to acknowledge a technical improvement to the system or a technical field. Further, the CDC-based capture and API/XML/EDI transmission are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in Remarks, pages 10-11 of 12) that under Step 2B, the amended ordered combination provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claim is not simply "calculate a price using data." The claim now recites a specific sequence of computer operations in which pricing-relevant data is captured from transactional systems using CDC, standardized and allocated for retrieval, validated, and transmitted through APIs and XML/EDI integration for order-time price injection. The Office Action itself requested "the mechanisms whereby the database or computer is improved," and the amended claims now supply those mechanisms in terms drawn directly from the disclosed architecture. Accordingly, the amended claims, considered as a whole and in light of the specification, are directed to a specific technological implementation for real-time capture, routing, and application of pricing data in a distributed enterprise system. They are not directed merely to an abstract commercial practice performed on generic computer components. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and allowance of the claims.
In response to Applicant arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the claims as currently amended do not provide a technical improvement to a technical problem by using data capture. For instance, there does not appear to be technology improvement in the data capture nor is the technology involved in data capture explained in the Specification such that it would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to acknowledge a technical improvement to the system or a technical field. Further, the CDC-based capture and API/XML/EDI transmission are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a caching module,” “an/the integration module,” “a Pricing Validation and Maintenance module,” “a special pricing algorithm module,” and “a Special Pricing Creation and Application module” in claims 1 and 8;
“a real time data mesh (RTDM) module” in claims 2 and 10;
“a RTDM module” in claims 9 and 11;
“the integration module” in claim 15;
“a RTDM module” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the integration module" in lines 3 and 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the integration module" in lines 4 and 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-14 depend from indefinite claim 8 and incorporates claim 8's indefiniteness issue via that dependency; and Claims 16-20 depend from indefinite claim 15 and incorporates claim 15’s indefiniteness issue via that dependency. Claims 9-14 and 16-20 do not remedy the indefiniteness issue. Therefore, claims 9-14 and 16-20 are indefinite for that reason.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 recite a method for automated near real-time special pricing calculation and application. Claims 1-7 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Claims 8-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claim 1 substantially recites:
storing vendor-specific data for accurate pricing calculations;
enable data exchange, standardizes data received and allocates the standardized data into a plurality of purposive datastores optimized for retrieval based on at least one of data classification, access frequency, or computational workload, and transmits pricing and order data for accurate pricing application;
applies one or more intelligent validation rules to incoming pricing input data retrieved from at least one purposive datastore to generate validated pricing data comprising one or more of manufacturer details, product categories, solution types, historical buying patterns, and time of year, to ensure pricing accuracy;
retrieves the Special Pricing Algorithms and the validated pricing data; and
provides the retrieved Special Pricing Algorithms and validated pricing data for application of correct pricing and associated conditions in near real-time to individual or multiple orders;
receives the Special Pricing Algorithms and validated pricing data, the validated pricing data comprising one or more of manufacturer details, product categories, solution types, historical buying patterns, and time of year
identifies applicable special pricing conditions for a given order;
selects a corresponding Special Pricing Algorithm based on the identified conditions;
executes the selected algorithm to inject computed pricing into the order prior to order confirmation; and
synchronizes the application of validated special pricing with real-time order context data, ensuring that pricing conditions are matched to active order metadata. The limitations as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The aforementioned limitations as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be interpreted as at least a “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or “Commercial Interactions” which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed by managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (storing, enable data exchange, applies, retrieves, provides, receives, identifies, selects, executes, and synchronizes) and commercial interactions (storing, enable data exchange, applies, retrieves, provides, receives, identifies, selects, executes, and synchronizes).
Independent claims 8 and 15 substantially recite:
capture/capturing changes in data;
apply/applying one or more intelligent validation rules to incoming pricing input data retrieved from at least one purposive datastore of a plurality of purposive datastores optimized for retrieval based on at least one of data classification, access frequency, or computational workload to generate validated pricing data comprising one or more of manufacturer details, product categories, solution types, historical buying patterns, and time of year, to ensure pricing accuracy;
retrieve/retrieving Special Pricing Algorithms and validated pricing data, the validated pricing data comprising one or more of manufacturer details, product categories, solution types, historical buying patterns, and time of year;
provide/providing the retrieved Special Pricing Algorithms and validated pricing data for application of correct pricing and associated conditions in near real-time to individual or multiple orders;
receive/receiving the Special Pricing Algorithms and validated pricing data, the validated pricing data comprising one or more of manufacturer details, product categories, solution types, historical buying patterns, and time of year;
identify/identifying applicable special pricing conditions for a given order;
select/selecting a corresponding Special Pricing Algorithm based on the identified conditions;
execute/executing the selected algorithm to inject computed pricing into the order prior to order confirmation; and
synchronize/synchronizing the application of validated special pricing with real-time order context data, ensuring that pricing conditions are matched to active order metadata; and
transmit/transmitting pricing and order data. The limitations as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The aforementioned limitations as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be interpreted as at least a “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or “Commercial Interactions” which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed by managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (capture/capturing, applies/applying, retrieves/retrieving, provides/providing, receives/receiving, identifies/identifying, selects/selecting, executes/executing, and synchronizes/synchronizes) and commercial interactions (capture/capturing, applies/applying, retrieves/retrieving, provides/providing, receives/receiving, identifies/identifying, selects/selecting, executes/executing, synchronizes/synchronizes, and transmit/transmitting).
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements (e.g. “a system,” “a caching module,” “an integration module,” “external systems,” “order processing systems,” “a change data capture mechanism,” ‘one or more application programming interfaces,” “”XML and EDI integration”, “a special pricing Algorithm Module,” “a plurality of purposive datastores,” “a Pricing Validation and Maintenance module,” “a plurality of purposive datastores,” and “a Special Pricing Creation and Application module”) to perform the storing, enable data exchange, applies, retrieves, provides, receives, identifies, selects, executes, and synchronize; and claims 8 recites the additional elements (e.g. “the integration module,” “the external systems,” “a change data capture mechanism,” “a Pricing Validation and Maintenance module,” “at least one purposive datastore,” “a plurality of purposive datastores,” “a Special Pricing Algorithm module,” “a Special Pricing Creation and Application module,” “one or more application programming interfaces,” and “XML and EDI integration”) and claim 15 recites the additional elements (e.g. “a computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” “one or more processors,” “a system,” “the integration module,” “the external systems,” “a change data capture mechanism,” “a Pricing Validation and Maintenance module,” “at least one purposive datastore,” “a plurality of purposive datastores,” “a Special Pricing Algorithm module,” “a Special Pricing Creation and Application module,” “one or more application programming interfaces,” and “XML and EDI integration”) to perform the capture/capturing, applies/applying, retrieves/retrieving, provides/providing, receives/receiving, identifies/identifying, selects/selecting, executes/executing, synchronizes/synchronizes, and transmit/transmitting. The “systems” and/or “modules” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of storing, enable data exchange, applies, retrieves, provides, receives, identifies, selects, executes, and synchronizes and/or capture/capturing, apply/applying, retrieve/retrieving, provide/providing, receive/receiving, identify/identifying, select/selecting, execute/executing, synchronize/synchronizes, transmit/transmitting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component. That is, the aforementioned limitations merely invoke the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the “system,” “caching module,” “integration module,” “external systems,” “order processing systems,” “change data capture mechanism,” “one or more application programming interfaces,” “XML and EDI integration”, “special pricing Algorithm Module,” “plurality of purposive datastores,” “Pricing Validation and Maintenance module,” “plurality of purposive datastores,” and “Special Pricing Creation and Application module” in claim 1 to perform the storing, enable data exchange, applies, retrieves, provides, receives, identifies, selects, executes, and synchronize steps; the additional element of using the “integration module,” “external systems,” “change data capture mechanism,” “Pricing Validation and Maintenance module,” “at least one purposive datastore,” “plurality of purposive datastores,” “Special Pricing Algorithm module,” “Special Pricing Creation and Application module,” “one or more application programming interfaces,” and “XML and EDI integration” in claims 8; and the additional element of using the “computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” “one or more processors,” “system,” “integration module,” “external systems,” “change data capture mechanism,” “Pricing Validation and Maintenance module,” “at least one purposive datastore,” “plurality of purposive datastores,” “Special Pricing Algorithm module,” “Special Pricing Creation and Application module,” “one or more application programming interfaces,” and “XML and EDI integration” in claim 15 to perform the capture/capturing, applies/applying, retrieves/retrieving, provides/providing, receives/receiving, identifies/identifying, selects/selecting, executes/executing, synchronizes/synchronizes, and transmit/transmitting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
As per dependent claims 2, 9, and 16, the recitation of “providing real-time data management and analysis capabilities” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation, “a real time data mesh (RTDM) module” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 3, the recitation of “retrieve one or more insights…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 4, the recitation of “storing vendor-specific data” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation, “a cache” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 5, the recitation of “utilizes integration technology…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the recitation of “leveraging insights…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the recitation of “ensure accurate, secure, and industry-standard compliant data…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 10 and 17, the recitation of “storing vendor-specific data” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 8 and 15, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation, “a caching mechanism” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 11 and 18, the recitation of “applying intelligent validation rules…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 8 and 15, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 12 and 19, the recitation of “retrieving vendor-specific data…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 8 and 15, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 13 and 20, the recitation of “facilitated using data exchange technologies” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 8 and 15, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected as being ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Prior Art Discussion
1) Vaishnav et al. (US PG Pub. 2024/0095788 A1) discloses a system and method for a scalable pricing engine;
2) Malone et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0095488 A1) discloses distributed globally accessible information network implemented for retrieving real rime live data from a community information network
3) Makhija et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0279200 A1) discloses a self-driven system and method for operating enterprise and supply chain application
4) Cella et al. (2023/0410095 A1) discloses peer-to-peer access based on asset control in an access layer; and
5) Cella et al. (2024/0118702 A1) discloses systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for managing control towers in value chain networks.
6) Dehghani, Zhamak, “How to Move Beyond a Monolithic Data Lake to a Distributed Data Mesh”, 20 May 2019, martinfowler.com, 31 pages discloses how to upgrade a network structure from a data lake to a data mesh.
However, the cited prior art does not fairly teach or disclose:
a Special Pricing Creation and Application module that:
provides the retrieved Special Pricing Algorithms and validated pricing data to a Special Pricing Creation and Application module for application of correct pricing and associated conditions in near real-time to individual or multiple orders;
selects a corresponding Special Pricing Algorithm based on the identified conditions executes the selected algorithm to inject computed pricing into the order prior to order confirmation; and
synchronizes the application of validated special pricing with real-time order context data, ensuring that pricing conditions are matched to active order metadata.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Thapliyal et al. (US PG Pub. 20230099557 A1) discloses rule evaluation for related data metrics in real-time data stream
2) Van de Wiel, Mark, “Change data capture (CDC): Tools, benefits, and best practices”, August 4, 2022, fivetran.com, 10 pages.
3) Sivagnanasothy, Lakshan, “How Change Data Capture is used for Real-Time Data Integration and Analytics”, May 22, 2019, medium.com, 7 pages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights