DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 02/19/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 04/01/2025.
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 .
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 1-21 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 4 recites “memory” in line 1. However, memory was already recited in claim 1. There is a lack of proper antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 (and 11, 21) recites “corresponding verification dispositions” in line 17. There is a lack of proper antecedent basis for this limitation as these have been recited prior to this, and should have a “the” or “said” in front of this. This renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 13 recites “evidence entries” in line 3. There is a lack of antecedent basis as evidence entries has been recited prior to this, rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 17 recite “the trace objects” in line 1. However, prior to this in claim 1, only “a trace object” and “the trace object” are recited. There is improper antecedent basis rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-10 are machine claims; claims 11-20 are process claims; and, claim 21 is manufacture. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 11, 21) recites the following abstract idea:
A system for tracing records across different systems, the system comprising:
a communication interface that communicates over a communication network to monitor data stored at a recordkeeping system that includes a data structure storing a plurality of record files, each record file including a plurality of data entries (addressed in Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B); and a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to (addressed in Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B):
identify a set of associated data entries from across different record files in the data structure (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
identify one or more evidence entries stored at an evidence system, the evidence entries identified as corresponding to the set of associated data entries (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
generate a trace object that is defined based on the set of associated data entries and the corresponding evidence entries (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) pen and paper),
generate a verification disposition for the trace object based on a comparison of the set of associated data entries to the corresponding evidence entries (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) pen and paper), and
generate a diagram that visually represents trace status for the record files in the recordkeeping system, wherein the diagram includes a plurality of trace objects including the defined trace object and corresponding verification dispositions including the generated verification disposition (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) pen and paper, C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these limitations are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 11 and 21) is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of
a communication interface that communicates over a communication network to monitor data stored at a recordkeeping system that includes a data structure storing a plurality of record files, each record file including a plurality of data entries; and a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to [implement abstract idea].
These additional elements are utilized in an “apply it” manner. In other words, they are broadly recited and used as tools to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the examiner does not find any improvement to the underlying technology of storing data in the memory or in the utilization of the processor.
Accordingly, the examiner finds claims 1 (and 11, 21) to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Exemplary claim 1 (and 11 and 21) are not found to include significantly more. The additional element analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applicable to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(d).
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as WURC functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim involves at some level receiving and transmitting data over a network. This has been found to be WURC in e.g. Symantec. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim involves performing repetitive calculations and electronic recordkeeping, as evidenced by Applicant’s Spec at e.g. [0027] “Such mining by verifying system 102 may therefore detect that one or more data entries are not yet associated with any other data entries. Such mining may occur continuously, periodically, or be triggered (e.g., addition of new data entry, request by user, etc.). Finding and generating accurate associations between different data entries (which may reside within different record files, as well as different recordkeeping and evidence source systems) may be based on a variety of matching parameters.”
The claim also involves at some level storing and retrieving information in memory. This has also been found to be WURC. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Accordingly, when viewed alone and in combination, the limitations are not found to include significantly more, and are therefore found to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent claims – Claims 2 and 12 includes more abstract idea, and WURC activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claims 3 and 13 includes more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims 4 and 14 more abstract idea with WURC. Claims 5 and 15 includes more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B). Claims 6 and 16 include more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims 7 and 17 include more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims 8 and 18 recite more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B). Claims 9 and 19 recite more abstract idea, done in apply it rationale. Claim 10 and 20 includes more abstract idea done in apply it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0304323 to McCall et al. (“McCall”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0406254 to Friedman et al. (“Friedman”).
With regard to claims 1, 11, 21, McCall discloses the claimed system for tracing records across different systems, the system comprising: a communication interface that communicates over a communication network to monitor data stored at a recordkeeping system that includes a data structure storing a plurality of record files, each record file including a plurality of data entries (McCall, e.g. [0079]-[0083]); and a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to (McCall, e.g. abstract, throughout):
identify a set of associated data entries from across different record files in the data structure (McCall, e.g. [0007-8]),
identify one or more evidence entries stored at an evidence system, the evidence entries identified as corresponding to the set of associated data entries (McCall, e.g. [0044-46]),
generate a trace object that is defined based on the set of associated data entries and the corresponding evidence entries (McCall, e.g. [0042]),
generate a verification disposition for the trace object based on a comparison of the set of associated data entries to the corresponding evidence entries (McCall, e.g. [0048]), and
generate a diagram that visually represents trace status for the record files in the recordkeeping system (McCall, e.g. [0050] [0052-53]), wherein the diagram includes a plurality of trace objects (McCall, e.g. [0050] In one example, the output may be in a tabular format and may include various known, or to be developed, identifiers to distinguish valid traces and entries from invalid/questionable traces.) including the defined trace object and corresponding verification dispositions including the generated verification disposition (McCall does not teach this aspect of the claimed invention. Freidman teaches this. Friedman teaches at e.g. [0060-64] [0085-87] published claim 3-7, that it would have been obvious to include trace object(s) such as Friedman activity record 220, associated entries at Friedman e.g. input datum records 228, associated verification disposition at Friedman e.g. trust modifier 232 propagated throughout the graph, visual diagram at Friedman e.g. [0008] [0011] A provenance visualizer can comprise a display and a user input interface for receiving a selection of a datum. The provenance visualizer can be configured to display the retrieved provenance graph.and plurality of trace objects at e.g. Friedman Fig. 5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McCall’s system and method for data synchronization and verification with Friedman’s ability to include the defined trace object and generated trust modifier in the visualization, as taught by Friedman, where this facilitates visualization, auditing, and assessment of trace reliability).
With regard to claims 2, 12, McCall further discloses the trace object has a different data structure than the recordkeeping system (McCall, e.g. [0088-89]).
With regard to claims 3, 13, McCall further discloses the processor generates a verification disposition for another trace object by determining that another set of associated data entries does not correspond to evidence entries provided by evidence system (McCall, e.g. [0050] invalid/questionable traces).
With regard to claims 4, 14, McCall further discloses memory that stores contextual information regarding the recordkeeping system, wherein the processor identifies that the set of data entries are associated based on the contextual information (McCall, e.g. [0043] Set of logics (rules) used to identify associations may be developed using known or to be developed machine learning techniques that over time learn common/specialized associations of data based on various factors including, but not limited to, dates of entries, description of entries, codes identifying transactions and customers, etc. FIG. 4 will describe a machine learning process for developing the set of logics (rules).).
With regard to claims 5, 15, McCall further disclose the contextual information includes one or more of account associated with one or more of the set of data entries (McCall, e.g. [0043] codes identifying transactions and customers), a type of the account, a type of record, and a type of data structure.
With regard to claims 6, 16, McCall further discloses identify one or more differences within the set of data entries, generate one or more quality metrics, and assign a confidence score regarding completeness of the verification disposition (McCall, e.g. [0050-51]).
With regard to claims 7, 17, McCall further discloses where the trace objects in the diagram correspond to all transactions associated with the record files in the recordkeeping system (MaCall, e.g. [0050]).
With regard to claims 8, 18, McCall further discloses where the trace objects correspond to a plurality of transactions that occur over time (see [0043] dates of entries). However, McCall does not appear to disclose wherein the diagram visually distinguishes between an older transaction and a newer transaction. Friedman teaches this at e.g. [0051] where each activity record of the visualization can further “include timestamp 230 and trust modified 232. Activity records 220 can comprise data entries compatible with the PROV-O ontology or other data format compatible with the PROV data model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall to include such timestamps that distinguish between older and newer based on the time stamp date, where this provides the added benefit of knowing how old/stale the data is, which can help assess whether the data will be useful in a current or future situation.
With regard to claims 9, 19, McCall further discloses where another trace object generated for another set of associated data entries within the recordkeeping system is associated with a different verification disposition, and wherein the diagram visually distinguishes between the verification disposition of the generated trace object and the different verification disposition of the other trace object (McCall, e.g. [0048]).
With regard to claims 10, 20, McCall further discloses another trace object generated for another set of associated data entries within the recordkeeping system is associated with a different completion status, and wherein the diagram visually distinguishes between a completion status of the generated trace object and the different completion status of the other trace object (McCall, e.g. [0048] The verification process examines each of the other two entries of $3000 and $2000 in the revenue financial to validate them. Verification process also attempts to validate entries of the trace in other financial records. If all entries are validated, verifying system 102 returns a complete verification of the trace. If some entries can be validated, verifying system may return a partial validation of the trace. If none of the entries can be validated, verifying system 102 returns an invalid trace result to be communicated to the system operator as will be described below.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights