DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 18 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 June 2026 was considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejected Claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. Patent Number. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite (emphasized):
US Pat. No. 12530686
Present Application (19/424,918)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method for reducing server-side processing resources spent on annotating schema-specific transaction data, the computer-implemented method comprising: creating a plurality of transaction accounts for an organization client, a transaction account allowing an owner of the transaction account to perform transactions with third-party named entities;
receiving annotation requirements associated with the plurality of transaction accounts of the organization client, wherein the annotation requirements identify a third-party platform and specify a data field of a data schema used by the third-party platform to organize data; receiving one or more selection criteria from the organization client, the selection criteria specifying transactions that need to be annotated; processing transactions on behalf of the organization client, wherein processed transactions are represented according to a plurality of different data schema;
identifying, by a server, unannotated transactions from the processed transactions using the one or more selection criteria specified by the organization client; storing a data instance corresponding to a particular unannotated transaction; storing, automatically, a first set of metadata in association with the data instance, the first set of metadata retrieved from processing the transactions on behalf of the organization client; receiving documentation records from end users of the plurality of transaction accounts; matching, automatically, a documentation record to the particular unannotated transaction corresponding to the data instance, the documentation record including unstructured data; extracting the unstructured data in the documentation record to generate a second set of metadata using a machine learning model trained to identify transaction-related attributes; storing the second set of metadata in association with the data instance; distributing, by the server, annotation workload from the server processing resources to end users by requesting the end users to annotate the unannotated transactions instead of having the server to annotate the unannotated transactions, wherein requesting the end users to annotate the unannotated transactions comprises:
identifying a responsible end user associated with a particular unannotated transaction, the particular unannotated transaction associated with a particular data schema,
generating an annotation user interface that exposes input elements corresponding to data fields required by the particular data schema associated with the particular unannotated transaction,
transmitting a direct link to the responsible end user, the direct link bringing the responsible end user directly to the annotation user interface specific to the particular unannotated transaction, the annotation user interface guiding the responsible end user to supply data field values that comply with the particular data schema, and wherein distributing the annotation workload reduces the server-side processing resources spent on annotating schema-specific transaction data;
receiving, from the end users, annotations of the unannotated transactions, wherein at least one of the annotations includes data field values of the schema of the third-party platform; storing a third set of metadata in association with the data instance, the third set of metadata including an annotation provided by the responsible end user; and displaying, at a graphical user interface for an administrator of the organization client, entries of a plurality of annotated transaction data that include the data field values, the graphical user interface
allowing the administrator to export the plurality of annotated transaction data to the third-party platform, wherein the plurality of annotated transaction data comprises the first set of metadata, the second set of metadata generated using the machine learning model, and the third set of metadata, and wherein the graphical user interface is dynamically updated based on real-time interaction data received from the server.
A computer-implemented method for reducing server-side processing resources in annotating schema-specific transaction data, comprising:
receiving annotation requirements from an organization client, the requirements identifying a third-party platform and at least one data field of a data schema used by the platform;
identifying, by a server, unannotated transactions of the organization client using selection criteria specified by the client; distributing annotation workload from the server to end users by:
determining a responsible end user for a particular unannotated transaction associated with a particular data schema,
generating an annotation user interface exposing input elements for data fields required by the particular data schema,
transmitting a direct link to the responsible end user that opens the annotation user interface specific to the unannotated transaction, and guiding the responsible end user to supply data field values that comply with the particular data schema;
receiving, from the responsible end user via the annotation user interface, annotation data including values for the identified data fields; storing the received annotation data in association with the transaction; and
exporting annotated transaction data, comprising the stored annotation data, to the third‑party platform, wherein distributing the annotation workload as described reduces server-side processing resources used for annotating schema-specific transaction data.
As highlighted in the above comparison, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12530686 fully anticipates claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, it can be concluded that the invention of the present application is patentably indistinct from the invention claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12530686.
Accordingly, claim 1 of the present application be rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting doctrine.
Additionally, claims 2-10 an 12-19 of the present application recite similar limitations and are anticipated by limitations recited in claims 2-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12530686 and thus claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting doctrine
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, claims 1-10 are directed towards a method, claim 20 is directed to a system/apparatus, and claims 11-19 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites the following:
A computer-implemented method for reducing server-side processing resources in annotating schema-specific transaction data, comprising:
receiving annotation requirements from an organization client, the requirements identifying a third-party platform and at least one data field of a data schema used by the platform;
identifying, by a server, unannotated transactions of the organization client using selection criteria specified by the client;
distributing annotation workload from the server to end users by:
determining a responsible end user for a particular unannotated transaction associated with a particular data schema,
generating an annotation user interface exposing input elements for data fields required by the particular data schema,
transmitting a direct link to the responsible end user that opens the annotation user interface specific to the unannotated transaction, and
guiding the responsible end user to supply data field values that comply with the particular data schema;
receiving, from the responsible end user via the annotation user interface, annotation data including values for the identified data fields;
storing the received annotation data in association with the transaction; and
exporting annotated transaction data, comprising the stored annotation data, to the third‑party platform, wherein distributing the annotation workload as described reduces server-side processing resources used for annotating schema-specific transaction data.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing a mental process. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite steps which could reasonably be performed by the human mind using a pen and paper which is grouped within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of performing a mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “server” and “server-side processing resources” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “server” and “server-side processing resources” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “server” and “server-side processing resources” amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “server” and “server-side processing resources” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite risk mitigation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 recite the additional element of a “graphical user interface” which does not integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amounts to significantly more.
Claims 4, 7-10, 14 and 17-19 recite limitations which are also directed towards the recited abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 15 recite the additional element of a “webpage” which does not integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amounts to significantly more.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the additional element of an “end user device” which does not integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amounts to significantly more.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims recite allowable subject matter provided the currently pending 101 and double patenting rejections are overcome.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites: “A computer-implemented method for reducing server-side processing resources in annotating schema-specific transaction data, comprising: receiving annotation requirements from an organization client, the requirements identifying a third-party platform and at least one data field of a data schema used by the platform; identifying, by a server, unannotated transactions of the organization client using selection criteria specified by the client; distributing annotation workload from the server to end users by: determining a responsible end user for a particular unannotated transaction associated with a particular data schema, generating an annotation user interface exposing input elements for data fields required by the particular data schema, transmitting a direct link to the responsible end user that opens the annotation user interface specific to the unannotated transaction, and guiding the responsible end user to supply data field values that comply with the particular data schema; receiving, from the responsible end user via the annotation user interface, annotation data including values for the identified data fields; storing the received annotation data in association with the transaction; and exporting annotated transaction data, comprising the stored annotation data, to the third‑party platform, wherein distributing the annotation workload as described reduces server-side processing resources used for annotating schema-specific transaction data.”
The closest art of record is as follows:
Mell (US 20200320503 A1) generally discloses systems and methods for identifying transactions based upon present or non-present annotation information.
Cahill et al. (US 20050240630 A1) generally discloses systems and methods for receiving annotation data from a third-party platform and annotating transaction with the received annotation data.
Ryu (US 20190043120 A1) generally discloses identifying transaction based upon entries present within a transaction data structure including annotation information.
However, the cited references, alone or in combination fail to disclose the combination of elements including: “distributing annotation workload from the server to end users by: determining a responsible end user for a particular unannotated transaction associated with a particular data schema, generating an annotation user interface exposing input elements for data fields required by the particular data schema, transmitting a direct link to the responsible end user that opens the annotation user interface specific to the unannotated transaction, and guiding the responsible end user to supply data field values that comply with the particular data schema; receiving, from the responsible end user via the annotation user interface, annotation data including values for the identified data fields; storing the received annotation data in association with the transaction”
Moreover, the missing claim limitations from the combination of Mell, Cahill, and Ryu are not found in a reasonable number of references.
Yet even if the missing claimed elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to include these elements in Mell because Mell is not concerned with receiving or processing transaction annotations.
Foreign prior art and NPL searches were conducted. However, no additional relevant prior art was found.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights