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 June 04, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-26 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-26 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 1-26 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 1-26 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 18-26), a machine (claims 1-9), and a manufacture (claims 10-18), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
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 receiving image data for a plurality of transactions to classify a record pertaining to a specific transaction by;
receive, from the,…, of a user of the network service, image data comprising an image of a record;
execute image processing,…, on the image to identify a set of information items that are, at least partially, not determinable from the record;
determine, based on the processed record, that the first set of information items is not sufficient to classify the record:
in response to determining that the first set of information items is not sufficient to classify the record, obtain a second set of information items by querying, based on the first set of information items, one or more extrinsic sources;
wherein obtaining the second set of information items includes executing augmentation,…, to process the record by (i) accessing a transaction database to identify a plurality of transactions made by the user, (ii) identifying a matching transaction from the plurality of transactions that pertains to the record, and (iii) resolving the first set of information items using the matching transaction; and
classify the record in a user account of the user based on at least one of the first set of information items or the second set of information items.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving image data for a plurality of transactions to classify a record pertaining to a specific transaction).
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 “processor,” “logic,” “device,” and “memory” 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, paragraphs [0014] and [0098] of the specification). Independent claims 10 and 19 are nearly identical to independent claim 1 so the same analysis applies to those claims as well.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-26 have been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
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).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on June 04, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the pending rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the newly amended limitations of claim 1 overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). As the Applicant notes, “Schmidtler does not disclose determining, based on the processed record, that a first set of information items is not sufficient to classify the record, and, in response to that determination, obtaining a second set of information items by querying one or more extrinsic sources, as recited in amended Claim 1. Schmidtler retrieves its complementary purchase order unconditionally, using an identifier extracted from the received document, in order to assess the validity of the received document; it does not condition the retrieval of any further information on a determination that information items obtained by image processing are insufficient to classify the record. See id., col. 3, II. 23-36; Fig. 2. Schmidtler accordingly neither discloses the recited insufficiency-to-classify determination nor the recited responsive obtaining of a second set of information items from one or more extrinsic sources. Nor does Schmidtler determine, based on the type of the record, whether image-derived information items are sufficient to classify the record; the Specification describes that the information sufficient to classify record varies by record type.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, pp. 11-12). Hence, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “[t]his is a specific, technical process for classifying records from image input that image processing alone cannot resolve, and is not a mental process or a method of organizing human activity that could be performed in the human mind.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). The heart of this invention has to do with receiving image data for a plurality of transactions to classify a record pertaining to a specific transaction. The use of various forms of information which is gathered is ancillary to this ultimate goal. 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.
Applicant next argues that “…[c]laim 1 recites "additional elements" that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). However, 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 using generic image processing techniques along with gathering information from various data sets does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are merely generic components that are implementing the abstract idea.
Applicant finally argues that “[g]iven the specificity and technological solution provided by the claim, amended Claim 1 is also subject matter eligible under Step 2B.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). However, the Applicant does not expand upon what exactly is the “specificity and technological solution provided by the claim.” This is merely a conclusory statement provided without any evidence.
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
Prosecution Insights