DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on May 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 10-11, 14, 16, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled and claim 21 has been newly added. Thus, claims 1-21 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process, (claims 1-19 and 21) and a machine (claim 20), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of obtaining and publishing change events in order to process open transactions by:
obtaining,…, a set of change events, each respective change event including metadata indicating a type of the respective change event and
a unique identifier for the respective change event;
selectively publishing,…, the change events to a staging queue of the,…,based on the types and the unique identifiers;
selectively generating, at a sink,…,that extracts the selectively published change events from the staging queue, boundaries for transactions associated with the change events based on the types and the unique identifiers; and
publishing, in a target queue of,…, a bounded list indicating, for each of the transactions, a start boundary for the transaction, the change events associated with the transaction, and an end boundary for the transaction, thereby resolving open transactions caused by asynchronous event ingestion or a service disruption in the,....
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., obtaining and publishing change events in order to process open transactions).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “component” and “system” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0010] of the specification). Claim 20 is nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to this claim as well. It includes additional elements such as “processor” and “memory” that are being used to implement the abstract idea in claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-19 and 21 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The examiner considers the following reference(s)
pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features
of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
McCauley III et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,986) does not teach “selectively generating, at a sink component of the computing system that extracts the selectively published change events from the staging queue, boundaries for transactions associated with the change events based on the types and the unique identifiers; and publishing, in a target queue of the computing system, a bounded list indicating, for each of the transactions, a start boundary for the transaction, the change events associated with the transaction, and an end boundary for the transaction. McCauley teaches an apparatus for obtains a set of change events in which a guardian object may be situated between the event source and the event sink to facilitate asynchronicity of even delivery and to account for disparate threading models between the event source and event sink. However, McCauley does not teach that a sink component extracts the change events and the publishes a start boundary for the transaction.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on May 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “[a]pplicant respectfully submits that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and provides an inventive concept” and that “[s]imilarly, here, Applicant's claim 1 does not recite a mere fundamental economic practice or mental process. Rather, by reciting, for example, '’publishing, in a target queue of the computing system, a bounded list ... thereby resolving open transactions caused by asynchronous event ingestion or a service disruption in the computing system,’ claim 1 directs the method to a specific technical objective and an improvement in the functioning of a computer pipeline.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). The heart of this invention has to do with processing open transactions in a certain manner basd on filtering incoming change events. However, without the actual transactions occurring and being “open,” none of these techniques being used would be of consequence. Thus, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., obtaining and publishing change events in order to process open transactions). The amended claim limitations are not indicative of an integration into a practical application as improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field is not evidenced. Merely concluding what the invention leads to does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are merely generic components that are implementing the abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “component” and “system” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0010] of the specification). Using a filtering technique to allow certain open transactions to be close them while is not a technological improvement. New dependent claim 21 also does not resolve this issue. That claim merely detects identifiers and uses those to determine a corresponding most recently processed transaction to then resolve a transaction.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
