DETAILED ACTION
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 Final action is reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 18 August 2026.
Claims 1, 13, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 18 August 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of co-pending application No.18349836 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1 July 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the initial disclosure and prior to the close of prosecution. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The art based rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the human mind cannot monitor heterogeneous transaction system through log-based, trigger based or polling based change data capture, dynamically provision purpose specific data stored according to workload related criteria and perform parallel federated query execution. Examiner respectfully disagrees The monitoring is merely done by a real time data mesh. The fact that the change data capture used comprises at least one of log-based, trigger-based or polling based does not establish how specific types of change data capture are used for the monitoring function actively claimed. The capturing is merely data gathering and the monitoring is an observation of the captured data that is applied by a real time data mesh module.
Applicant argues that the human mind cannot dynamically provision purpose specific data stores. This argument is more specific than the limitations set forth in the claim. The claims require allocating data into a storage framework comprises PDSes dynamically provisioned within a Global Data Lake. The act of provisioning the datastores is not actively claimed, it is merely descriptive of the data stores where data is allocated.
Applicant argues that the human mind cannot perform parallel federated query execution. This argument is more specific than the limitations set forth in the claim. The claims do not actually perform parallel federated query execution. The claims integrate transformed data into a federated data processing layer configured to enable parallel query execution. This is an intended use. The act of querying is not performed as part of the claimed methodology, the fact that stored data in layers can be queried or that it enables query execution across a plurality of PDSes does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the integrating step and is not explicitly linked to the derivation functions performed by the revenue intelligent digital assist decision engine to generate revenue opportunity scores or opportunities.
Applicant argues that the specification identifies a technical problem and technical solution. [0007-0011] describe problems with conventional distribution platforms being constrained by reactive fulfillment architectures, batch oriented analytics and fragmented data pipelines. Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not illustrate a nexus between the alleged improved architecture and the identified abstract idea for deriving a plurality of revenue related attributes that are processed using predictive scoring to generate revenue opportunity scores and proactive revenue opportunities. Unlike Enfish, Amdocs, and BASCOM, there is no meaningful implementation of specifically recited additional elements that ties the described real time data mesh and PDSes to the generation of scores or generation of opportunities. Thus, the steps of the alleged technical improvement are not realizing a technical solution to a technical problem but are instead being used as a tool to address business problems including reactive fulfillment, batch oriented analytics and fragmented data pipelines that prevent timely detection of revenue signals. The ability to use predictive scoring models to generate revenue opportunity scores and proactive revenue opportunities is not sufficiently integrated with specifically recited additional elements to realize a technical improvement to a technical problem but instead address a business problem through proactive revenue opportunity identification and opportunity scoring. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained below.
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.
Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 recite a system, method and medium including limitations for monitoring a plurality of systems for real time data changes, capturing and processing the data changes, transforming data into a standardized format, deriving a plurality of revenue related attributes, processing the attributes using a scoring model to generate opportunity scores and generating proactive revenue opportunities. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Monitoring systems for real time data changes, capturing and processing the data as well as transforming data into a standardized format via schema adaptation, data normalization and enrichment processes, deriving attributes, processing to generate scores and generating opportunities illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or computer system environment such as a real time data mesh, including a change data capture, and/or digital assistant as part of the computer implemented method within a distribution ecosystem does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including allocating data into a distributed storage framework comprising purposive datastores dynamically provisioned within a Global Data Lake, integrating transformed data into a federated data processing layer without requiring centralized materialization, as well as the units of the system modules that are configured to execute the other claim steps. The monitoring, capturing, allocating/storage, integrating and generating if performed by a module or explicitly recited element would be considered recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission/outputting, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The modules and engine that perform the other functions are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps or link the steps to a particular technical environment without meaningfully limiting the implementation of the steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt, storage or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-18 and 20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 19 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps and describe the sources of transaction data as different types of transactional systems, the types of databases and data, the types of attributes that can be derived, that the models comprise an ensemble of models executed in parallel comprising a propensity for conversion likelihood, margin uplift, or renewal prediction, describe when opportunities can be identified, how the opportunities are identified based on observed traction, and that they comprise time sensitive information, that rules are used to suppress or emit opportunities based on confidence, margin and condition based thresholds and that outcomes can be used for refinement and retraining, combining outputs into composite scores using weighted blending, ranking opportunities, classifying opportunities, and using governance rules. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe additional information of the interface for displaying outputs and that the opportunities are delivered via APIs with error handling and retry mechanisms and that the system is configurable to with access controls and to deploy across heterogeneous enterprise environments that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more. The claims do not demonstrate or realize a technical solution to a technical problem nor any other recited technological improvement.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights