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 response to remarks received 06/11/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 being independent have also been amended, while claims 2-9 11-18 and 20 are dependent claims and as originally recited.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been considered and are persuasive. In particular, the amendments to independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite field mapping information associated with an open-to-buy calculation. Upon reconsideration of Bhattacharyya, the cited portions of the reference do not sufficiently disclose the newly recited limitations. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Bhattacharyyais withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 13 are also withdrawn based on dependency of allowed independent claims.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 10 and 19 have been considered but do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The amended claims further specify that the field mapping information is associated with an open-to-buy calculation and that the authorization response is based on the configuration. These limitations further specify the information used and the manner in which the authorization-processing decision and response are generated, but do not change the character of the claimed concept or provide a specific improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field. Rather, the claims continue to use the recited computing components and configuration-based processing as tools for obtaining and processing information, applying mappings and rules, determining an authorization decision, and providing the resulting authorization response. Accordingly, considered individually and as an ordered combination, the amended limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues under Step 2A, Prong One that the claims do not recite a mental process because certain limitations, including performing service calls and field mappings, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Even assuming that these particular computer-implemented operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the claims nevertheless recite a certain method of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recite obtaining an authorization request, obtaining and mapping information used in processing the request, evaluating decision data according to rules, determining an authorization decision, and generating and providing an authorization response. These limitations describe commercial or business decision-making associated with authorization processing. The fact that the recited operations are performed using a device does not remove the underlying commercial activity from the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Applicant further argues under Step 2A, Prong Two that paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Specification establish a technological improvement because configuration-driven authorization request processing provides increased flexibility and adaptability relative to conventional hard-coded authorization processing. The Examiner has considered the cited portions of the Specification and the claims as amended. Although the Specification describes advantages associated with defining authorization processing according to a configuration rather than hard-coded processing, the claims do not reflect a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology. Rather, the claims use the configuration to specify service-call information, field-mapping information, and rule sets used in obtaining and processing information and determining an authorization decision. The newly recited open-to-buy calculation and authorization response based on the configuration further specify the information and criteria used in carrying out the authorization determination, but do not provide a technological mechanism that improves the operation of the computer itself.
Accordingly, the asserted flexibility and adaptability relate to how the authorization-processing workflow is configured and carried out rather than an improvement to computer functionality or another technical field. The claims therefore continue to use the recited computing components and configuration-based processing as tools for carrying out the abstract authorization-processing concept. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are recited to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 10 are directed to a process, claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depend therefrom. Thus, the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 1 is satisfied.
Under Step 2A – Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites:
obtaining an authorization request
retrieving configuration information
performing service calls to obtain data
performing mappings, including using field mapping information associated with an open-to-buy calculation, to generate decision data;
evaluating the decision data using rules; and
generating and providing an authorization response based on the configuration.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite collecting information, analyzing information using rules, and providing decision/response for authorization processing. Such limitations describe commercial or business decision-making and thus recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations in different statutory form and directed to the same abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 further recite additional limitations on the authorization-processing abstract idea. Claim 2 recites determining whether a service call condition is satisfied prior to performing service calls; claim 3 recites performing a second service call after completion of a first service call; claim 4 recites performing at least two service calls concurrently; claim 5 recites determining whether a field mapping condition is satisfied prior to performing field mappings; claim 6 recites particular types of rule sets; claim 7 recites post-decision service calls; claim 8 recites post-decision field mappings; and claim 9 recites storing request/decision-related information in a data map. These limitations merely further specify how the abstract idea is evaluated, sequenced, conditioned, or stored, and therefore also recite the same judicial exception.
Dependent claims 11-18 and 20 recite limitations analogous to claims 2-9 and likewise further limit the same abstract idea in the same manner. Accordingly, claims 11-18 and 20 also recite the same judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite generic components such as one or more processors, one or more memories, and in claim 19 a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These are recited at a high-level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of receiving, storing, retrieving, processing, and outputting data.
The limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not improve the functioning of a computer, processor, memory, or other technology. Retrieving configuration information, using service call information, field mapping information associated with an open-to-buy calculation, and rule sets, performing service calls, generating decision/output data, evaluating the data, and generating/providing an authorization response based on the configuration are all part of using generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract authorization-processing concept and do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Claim 2 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because determining whether a service call condition is satisfied prior to performing service calls merely places a condition on when part of the abstract decision workflow is performed. It does not improve computer technology or another technical field.
Claim 3 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because requiring that a second service call be performed after a first service call merely specifies sequencing of information-gathering steps within the abstract idea.
Claim 4 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because performing at least two service calls concurrently merely specifies timing or parallelization of data retrieval operations using generic computer functionality.
Claim 5 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because determining whether a field mapping condition is satisfied prior to performing field mappings merely conditions execution of a data-transformation step within the abstract workflow.
Claim 6 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because specifying a base rule set or transaction -division-specific rule set merely defines the content of the rules used to evaluate data, which remains part of the abstract decision-making concept.
Claim 7 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because performing post-decision service calls associated with the authorization decision merely adds further data-processing or communication steps after a decision is made.
Claim 8 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because performing post-decision field mappings in association with generating the authorization response merely adds further manipulation of information after evaluation.
Claim 9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because storing request-related, source, decision, and response information in a data map with an identifier merely recites storage and organization of information, which is a generic computer function.
Claims 11-18 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons discussed with respect to corresponding claims 2-9. These claims merely add further conditions, sequencing, concurrency, rule definitions, post-decision processing or data storage limitations to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims do not impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception and do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements recited in the claims, including processors, memories, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the recited configuration-based processing, service calls, field mappings, rule sets, data maps, field mapping information associated with an open-to-buy calculation, and generation of authorization response based on the configuration. These limitations use generic computer components and data-processing functionality to carry out the abstract authorization-processing concept.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 collectively amount to no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer implementation details for carrying out the abstract idea.
None of the additional elements recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, a particular machine, or a transformation of data beyond generic processing, nor do they apply the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on its scope.
When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims merely implement the abstract authorization-processing concept using generic computer components in a conventional manner. The claims therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights