DETAILED ACTION
3Notice 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2026, 06/29/2026 and 07/16/2026 consecutively are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Acknowledgement
It is acknowledged that this application is a CIP of SN 18/675,386 submitted 05/28/2024.
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 15-20 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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: in claim 15, the instructions to perform stages are missing from the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation, “the pricing calculation procedure” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the configuration file" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method for providing pricing logic in an ERP environment” claim 11 is directed to a computer-readable medium
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “using customized pricing logic for a set of transactions during a billing cycle by performing pricing calculations” which is grouped certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing transactions and/or creating and using an index to search and retrieve data provided under in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 1 recites “creating, using an condition index, a first virtual table that includes predetermined fields of transactional records identified for having an associated pricing condition; comparing the transactional records in the first virtual table to a configuration file; based on the comparison, creating a second virtual table that includes transactional records from the first virtual table that satisfy a first condition in the configuration file; and applying a pricing calculation procedure using the transaction records in the second virtual table, the pricing calculation procedure being designated in the configuration file.”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “one processor” “computer readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality in the claim(s) and represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or improvement of other technology or technical field, but merely recites the word apply it with the judicial exception (e.g., “applying a pricing calculation procedure using the transaction records…”) or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea, as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions (e.g., using a conditional index…comparing transactional records and based upon the comparison creating a table and applying a pricing calculation) that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of using customized pricing logic for a set of transactions during a billing cycle by performing pricing calculations.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using customized pricing logic for a set of transactions during a billing cycle by performing pricing calculations using computer technology (e.g. financial institution computing system). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception in that it further describes the method for providing customized pricing logic.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 recite a plurality of filters defining a condition for assigning transaction which under the broadest reasonable interpretation be considered abstract under certain methods of organizing human activity as being related to filtering content (Bascom)
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite, “…applying a conditional rule that adjusts the pricing value…” which is similar to providing a function by an element that merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea. The claim also recites, “…adjusts a pricing value based on a contractual threshold” which suggests the implementation of claim is based upon creating an abstract contractual relationship.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 recite, “…persisting a result of the pricing calculation procedure to a storage system…” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation may be describing mathematical concepts, procedures or calculations which results are being stored. This is similar to computer functions which the courts have considered to be well understood, routine and conventional. For example, This function is similar to receiving, processing and storing data.
Claims 7 and 14 recites, “querying the ERP…condition index…” is retrieving/ receiving data from a database which performs a function that is considered well-understood routine and conventional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weiner et al (US 2025/0272758) discloses method and system for automatically translating insurance rate filing into a pricing engine
Zhu et al (US 2022/0414722) discloses valuation method, pricing method, apparatus and system for cloud product
Schroder (EP 3 506 186) discloses methods and system relating to variable pricing for power plant maintenance and service.
Jones II et al (US 9,898,765) discloses pricing usage of software products
Berkovitz et al (US 8,762,294) discloses method and system for dynamic pricing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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 D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights