DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to non-provisional patent application filed on 11/18/24. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 17 recite “identifying a rule and an associated set of nodes from a dynamic hierarchical data structure”. Claim 12 recites “obtaining a rule and an associated set of nodes from the hierarchical data structure …” The claim limitation “nodes” (or one or more of the nodes) is interpreted by the Examiner as information (financial) stored in a data structure because the specification as filed in para. 17 “a dynamic ledger hierarchy comprises a set of nodes and associated edges, thereby defining a structure for a set of corresponding accounts”. The spec. further distinguishes the node as account information in FIG. 2, item 202, para. 26 “dynamic hierarchy 200 includes country node 202, which has two sub-nodes: state node 204 and state node 206” and para. 23 “data store 114 further stores account information (e.g., for accounts that each correspond to a node of the dynamic hierarchical ledger”. FIG. 3, items 304 and 306 and para. 32 of the spec. further define the node as financial information in “operation 306 comprises aggregating individual account information (e.g., for each account associated with an identified node) and/or generating summarized account information (e.g., a total balance, an average balance, etc.)”.
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 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claim 1-12), a process (claims 17-20). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed (from claims 1 and 17). (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of rule based evaluation of information (e.g.: financial, see specification as filed FIG. 3, items 303, 304 and para. 32), as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A system comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
identifying a rule and an associated set of nodes from a dynamic hierarchical data structure;
processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule to generate an evaluation result;
providing an indication of the evaluation result for the identified rule.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A system comprising”, “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “system comprising”, “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations” are mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“a dynamic hierarchical data structure”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “dynamic hierarchical data structure” is mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). This is also general linking as the “dynamic hierarchical data structure” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule”. This is no more than “apply it” as “processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule” invokes “computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based evaluation of information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 2 recites “receiving, from a computing device, a change to the dynamic hierarchical data structure”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a computing device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “computing device” is mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based evaluation of information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 5 recites “wherein providing the indication of the evaluation result comprises storing the evaluation result in a data store”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a data store”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “data store” is mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based evaluation of information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 11 recites “receiving a second request associated with a different dynamic hierarchical data structure”, “processing a set of nodes of the different dynamic hierarchical data structure to generate another evaluation result” and “providing an indication of the another evaluation result in response to the second request”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a different dynamic hierarchical data structure”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “different dynamic hierarchical data structure” is mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). This is also general linking as the “dynamic hierarchical data structure” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“processing a set of nodes of the different dynamic hierarchical data structure based on the identified rule”. This is no more than “apply it” as “processing a set of nodes of the different dynamic hierarchical data structure based on the identified rule” invokes “computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based evaluation of information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 3-4 and 6-10 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 12-16). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 12 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of rule based evaluation of information (e.g.: financial, see specification as filed FIG. 3, items 303, 304 and para. 32), as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
identifying a change to at least one of a rule or a node of the hierarchical data structure;
obtaining a rule and an associated set of nodes from the hierarchical data structure that relate to the change to the hierarchical data structure;
processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule to generate an evaluation result;
providing, to the computing device, an indication of the evaluation result for the identified rule..
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“the dynamic hierarchical data structure”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “dynamic hierarchical data structure” is mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). This is also general linking as the “dynamic hierarchical data structure” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule”. This is no more than “apply it” as “processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule” invokes “computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“the computing device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “computing device” is mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based evaluation of information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 16 recites “receiving a second request associated with a different dynamic hierarchical data structure”, “processing a set of nodes of the different dynamic hierarchical data structure to generate another evaluation result” and “providing an indication of the another evaluation result in response to the second request”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a different dynamic hierarchical data structure”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “different dynamic hierarchical data structure” is mere “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). This is also general linking as the “dynamic hierarchical data structure” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“processing a set of nodes of the different dynamic hierarchical data structure based on the identified rule”. This is no more than “apply it” as “processing a set of nodes of the different dynamic hierarchical data structure based on the identified rule” invokes “computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based evaluation of information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 13-15 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120278116 A1 (Solberg).
As to claims 1 and 17,
Solberg teaches,
identifying a rule and an associated set of nodes from a dynamic hierarchical data structure (para. 29 “using these generated allocation rules to allocate transactions, such as payment of sales commissions, among members of an organization. Each of these members are represented by a node in a hierarchical data structure and are optionally associated with some predefined rule”);
processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule to generate an evaluation result (para. 29 “Generated allocation rules, used for performing an allocation”);
providing an indication of the evaluation result for the identified rule (para. 15 “a transaction allocation output comprising a set of transactions selected using a query, the query based on a generated allocation rule generated using a hierarchical data structure”).
Additionally, with respect to claim 1,
Solberg teaches,
A system (FIG. 1, item 110, para. 34 “a Computing System”) comprising:
at least one processor (FIG. 1, item 110, claim 1 “a processor”);
memory storing instructions (FIG. 1, item 140, para. 36 “storage) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations (claim 1 “storage device has sets of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor”) comprising.
As to claim 12,
Solberg teaches,
identifying a change to at least one of a rule or a node of the hierarchical data structure (FIG. 4, item 450, para. 55 “update generated allocation rules if Hierarchical Data Structure 200 has been modified);
obtaining a rule and an associated set of nodes from the hierarchical data structure that relate to the change to the hierarchical data structure (para. 29 “using these generated allocation rules to allocate transactions… ”);
processing the set of nodes based on the identified rule to generate an evaluation result (para. 29 “Generated allocation rules, used for performing an allocation”);
providing, to the computing device, an indication of the evaluation result for the identified rule (para. 15 “a transaction allocation output …”).
As to claim 2, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Solberg teaches,
receiving, from a computing device, a change to the dynamic hierarchical data structure (FIG. 4, item 450, para. 55 “update generated allocation rules if Hierarchical Data Structure 200 has been modified. This modification optionally includes, for example, addition or deletion of nodes, changes in predefined rules”).
As to claims 3 and 13, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2, and 12.
Solberg teaches,
wherein the change (para. 55) comprises at least one of:
an indication of a rule for a node of the dynamic hierarchical data structure (para. 55 “addition or deletion of nodes, changes in predefined rules”);
an indication of new node for the dynamic hierarchical data structure (para. 55 “addition or deletion of nodes, changes in predefined rules”);
an indication to modify a node of the dynamic hierarchical data structure (para. 55 “addition or deletion of nodes, changes in predefined rules”); or
an indication to delete a node of the dynamic hierarchical data structure (para. 55 “addition or deletion of nodes, changes in predefined rules”).
As to claim 4, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Solberg teaches,
wherein the indication of the evaluation result is provided to the computing device (para. 62 “the transaction ”).
As to claim 5, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Solberg teaches,
wherein providing the indication of the evaluation result comprises storing the evaluation result in a data store (FIG. 5, item 550, para. 58 “results of queries executed in Execute Queries Step 540 are stored. Storage may occur on Storage 140… this storage is accomplished using an SQL compatible database”).
As to claims 6 and 18, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 17.
Solberg teaches,
wherein the evaluation result comprises an indication that the set of nodes satisfies the identified rule (para. 31 “Each query is used to select those transactions that satisfy the predefined rules included in a particular generated allocation rule”).
As to claims 7 and 14, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Solberg teaches,
wherein the evaluation result comprises a report generated according to the identified rule (para. 38 “generate a transaction allocation output that is optionally accessible to Client 120. Output Interface 180 is optionally configured to format the results in a report format”).
As to claim 8, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Solberg teaches,
wherein the identified set of nodes is a subpart of the dynamic hierarchical data structure (FIG. 2, item 210A, para. 39 “Business Objects 210A-210W include geographic regions (210A-210F)”).
As to claims 9 and 15, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Solberg teaches,
wherein the identified set of nodes comprises a node associated with the identified rule (FIG. 2, item 210A, para. 41 “Objects 210A-210W is associated with at least one generated allocation rule”) and one or more sub-nodes of the node (FIG. 2, items 210B-W, para. 41 “Objects 210A-210W is associated with at least one generated allocation rule”)
As to claims 10 and 19, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 17.
Solberg teaches,
wherein the rule and associated set of nodes is identified in response to a request and the indication of the evaluation result is provided in response to the request (FIG. 5, items 530, 540, para. 58 “Each query executed in Execute Queries Step 540 serves to select transactions to be allocated to a member of Business Objects 210A-210W”).
As to claims 11, 16 and 20, Solberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 12 and 17.
Solberg teaches,
receiving a second request associated with a different hierarchical data structure (para. 29 “using these generated allocation rules to allocate transactions, …”, para. 64 “The invention is optionally adapted to alternative types of ordered data structures that allow inheritance between nodes”);
processing a set of nodes of the different hierarchical data structure to generate another evaluation result (para. 29 “Generated allocation rules, used for performing an allocation”);
providing an indication of the another evaluation result in response to the second request (para. 15 “a transaction allocation output”).
Conclusion
References made or record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
US 20240428242 A1 (Marsh) hierarchy-based distributed ledger,
US 9031873 B2 (Parson) analysing and/or pre-processing financial accounting data, and
US 11194764 B1 (Adhikari) Tag policies for tagging system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 19, 2026