DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on November 5, 2025. Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-22 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claims 6 and 12 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Claim Objections
The amended claims have the term “first data exchanges” replaced with “first set of data exchanges.” However, claims 2, 5, 14, 16 and 22 recite “first data exchange” which lacks antecedent basis in light of amendments. Correction is required.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objection, Applicant’s amendment overcomes the objection and the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112 rejections, Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejections and the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the examiner Interview conducted on October 17, 2025, Applicant states in the remarks that the examiners tentatively agreed that the proposed claim amendments would overcome the outstanding rejections under 103 and 112(b).
The examiner respectfully notes that, as also noted in the Interview Summary, during the Interview Mr. Mirov stated that the term “data exchanges” represents “payment requests” and that the cited art does not teach a notification being transmitted after a payment request. The examiners proposed that the term is replaced specifically with "payment request" in order to specify the data exchange over the cited art. However, the proposed amendment is not applied to the claims and the amended claims recite that the messages comprise request-for-payment messages, but not the data exchanges.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant quotes the whole content of claim 1 and argues that the cited prior art do not teach the quoted elements, without further details on why Applicant believes that the cited art does not teach the claim. Applicant further describes features of Minyard reference and arrives at a conclusion that Minyard does not teach “receive a plurality of messages associated with a first set of data exchanges “ and “each message comprising a request-for-payment message structured in accordance with a standardized data-exchange protocol”, and “message fields include a first value of at least one parameter characterizing the corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim recitation “receive a plurality of messages associated with a first set of data exchanges,” implies, and is interpreted as, receiving a plurality of messages which in fact are a set of data exchanges. It was also discussed during the Interview on October 17, 2025, that according to the claims, “the plurality of messages” and “a first set of data exchanges” are actually two different ways of referring to the same elements, a plurality of messages that each of them is a data exchange. The examiner proposed, at the Interview, as is again proposing, that if Applicant wants to differentiate between “a message” and “a data exchange,” the claims need to be amended such that “a data exchange” is clearly defined as an element different from a message. For example, a data-exchange may be a “payment transaction” and a message may be a “request-for-payment” associated with the “payment transaction.” The claim will be clarified only when the element “data-exchange” or “a set of data exchanges” is spelled out as an element different from a message but associated with a message.
The examiner further notes that Minyard in [0045], [0062]-[0063] teaches messages using communication standards (standardized protocols) and in [0016]-[0019], [0049] teaches messages between buyers and sellers (request-for payment) with data elements including seller/buyer names and product data (at least one parameter value) in [0101]-[0102].
Applicant further argues that the prior art of Grigg fails to teach notification data that includes product data…present a portion of the product data within a digital interface prior to an execution of at least one of the initiated first set of data exchanges. The examiner respectfully notes that this argument is moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the Office’s analysis fails to establish that Applicant's claims “recite” an abstract idea under prong one Step 2A. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as shown in the 101 analysis in section 9 of this document, the claim recitation of claim 1, for example, include: receiving a plurality of messages, based on the elements of message data, performing operations that generate contextual data, and generating product data characterizing a product. It is obvious from the claim recitations that the claim is directed to predicting contextual data (i.e. intent) from a set of messages exchanged between two parties and providing product data associated with the predicted intent. This is because the cited processes can be performed by a person using pen and paper and generating contextual data and product data based on received message elements. Applicant further refers to the 2019 Guidance stating that the grouping of organizing human activity is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated subgroupings and is not to be expanded beyond these subgroupings. Applicant argues that the Office fails to provide support that the claims correspond to a fundamental economic principal or practice. The examiner respectfully disagrees and noted that a payment transaction between to corresponding parties and predicting parties’ interactions corresponding to an upcoming transaction based on their prior interactions is clearly in the field of fundamental economic principal or practice.
Further, Applicant argues that the claims incorporate the abstract idea into a practical Application. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements of the claim such as, for example, a communications interface, a device operable by the first counterparty, an application program executed at the device, a digital interface, a memory storing instructions, at least one processor, and tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a specific technological improvement to computing systems and environments that implement existing notification processes and existing processing networks. Applicant further refers to the Specification to argue that the computer-implemented processes described in the Specification receive, and decompose, a plurality of messages that include structured message data characterizing exchanges of data initiated during a prior temporal interval, and based on the structured message data characterizing the initiated data exchanges, the computer-implemented processes provision notification data that includes directed product data to a corresponding device in real-time upon receipt of the messages and prior to an execution of at least one of the initiated data exchanges. The examiner respectfully notes that the 101 analysis is based on the claim limitations and not the Specification. In addition, the examiner notes that even according to Applicant’s Specification, the processes merely include automatically extracting data from a message which can otherwise be performed by a person reading the message and extracting the data. Therefore, the claimed limitations do not, for example, involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant further argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, by repeating that the claims provide a specific technological improvement to computing systems and environments that implement existing notification processes and existing processing networks.
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 1-5, 7-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1-5 and 7-11 and 21 are directed to an apparatus (product), claims 13-19 are directed to a method (process), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (product). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 and 13-21 are directed to the abstract idea of predicting contextual data (i.e. intent) from a set of payment messages exchanged between two parties and providing product data associated with the predicted intent, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claims 1, 13 and 20, recite:
receive a plurality of messages associated with a first set of data exchanges via the communications interface, each of the messages being associated with a corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges initiated between a first counterparty and a corresponding second counterparty during a first temporal interval, each of the messages comprising a request-for-payment message structured in accordance with a standardized data-exchange protocol, and each of the messages comprising elements of message data that are disposed within corresponding message fields and that include a first value of at least one parameter characterizing the corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges initiated between the first counterparty and the corresponding second counterparty during the first temporal interval;
based on the elements of message data, perform operations that generate contextual data associated with at least one of the first counterparty or the first set of data exchanges, and that predict, during a second temporal interval, an occurrence of at least one second data exchange that involves the first counterparty and that is consistent with the contextual data, the second temporal interval being disposed subsequent to the first temporal interval; and
generate product data characterizing a product that is available to the first counterparty and associated with the predicted occurrence of the at least one second data exchange, and transmit, in real-time upon receipt of the plurality of messages, via the communications interface, notification data that includes the product data to a device operable by the first counterparty, and the notification data causing an application program executed at the device to present a portion of the product data within a digital interface, prior to an execution of at least one of the first set of data exchanges.
The claim recitation is directed to predicting intent (contextual data) from a set of received payment messages exchanged between two parties and providing product data associated with the predicted intent. Therefore the claims recite a fundamental economic principle or practice grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for predicting intent from a received set payment messages exchanged between two parties and providing product data associated with the predicted intent. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a communications interface, a device operable by the first counterparty, an application program executed at the device, a digital interface, a memory storing instructions, at least one processor, and tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by at least one processor, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of a communications interface, a device operable by the first counterparty, an application program executed at the device, a digital interface, a memory storing instructions, at least one processor, and tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by at least one processor, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices 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)), 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) ). 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 claims 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), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 recite:
obtain, from the memory, mapping data associated with the message fields of the messages;
for each of the messages, perform operations that obtain the elements of message data from corresponding ones of the message fields based on the mapping data; and
store the elements of message data associated with each of the messages within the memory, the elements of message data comprising, for a corresponding one of the messages, a first identifier of the first counterparty, a second identifier of the corresponding second counterparty, and the at least one parameter value of the corresponding first data exchange, which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Dependent claims 3 and 15 recite:
the mapping data comprises elements that identify corresponding ones of the elements of the message data and corresponding ones of the message fields, which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
obtain, based on the mapping data, information associated with the corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges from one or more of the message fields of a corresponding one of the messages, the information comprising a uniform resource locator associated with elements of formatted data maintained by a computing system.
This claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element of a computing system merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), the additional element of a computing system amounts to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
based on the uniform resource locator, perform operations that request and receive one or more of the elements of formatted data from the computing system via the communications interface; and
process the one or more elements of formatted data, and obtain at least one of (i) an additional parameter value characterizing the first data exchange associated with the corresponding message from the processed elements of formatted data or (ii) one or more elements of additional contextual data that characterize the first data exchange associated with the corresponding message based on the processed elements of formatted data, , which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
generate elements of aggregated data characterizing the first set of data exchanges initiated during the first temporal interval, the elements of aggregated data comprising temporal information identifying the first temporal interval and a first aggregated value of the parameter characterizing the first set of data exchanges, which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Dependent claim 8 and 18 recite:
determine a second aggregated value of the parameter that characterizes the predicted occurrence of the at least one second data exchange during the second temporal interval; and
determine that the product is available to the first counterparty based on the first and second aggregated parameter values, , which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset comprising one or more of the elements of message data and one or more of the elements of aggregated data; and
based on the application of the trained machine-learning or artificial- intelligence process to the input dataset, generate output data characterizing the predicted occurrence the at least one second data exchange during the second temporal interval.
This claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element of applying a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), the additional element of apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process, amounts to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to claim 9.
Dependent claim 11 recites:
wherein: the product data comprises a product identifier and information specifying a term or condition of the product;
the notification data comprises an element of digital content associated with the product; and
the notification data causes the executed application program to present at least the portion of the product data and the element of digital content within the digital interface, , which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Dependent claim 16 recite limitations similar to claims 4 and 5 combined.
Dependent claim 17 recite limitations similar to claims 7 and 8 combined.
Dependent claim 21 recites:
receive the plurality of messages via the communications interface during the first temporal interval; and
transmit the notification data to the device via the communications interface during the first temporal interval, which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Dependent claim 22 recites:
the standardized data-exchange protocol comprises an ISO 20022 compliant data-exchange protocol;
each of the plurality of messages comprises a request-for-payment message;
each of the first data exchanges is associated with a real-time payment requested from the first counterparty and by the corresponding second counterparty; and
the occurrence of the at least one second data exchange is associated with a request for a real-time payment from the first counterparty during the second temporal interval.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims 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), no additional elements are introduced in the claims.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-5, 7-11 and 13-22 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.
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 20, each claim recites: “transmit, in real-time upon receipt of the plurality of messages, and via the communications interface, notification data…” The term “in real-time” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “real-time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s Specification provides different scenarios as defining a “real-time” For example, the Specification in paragraph [0031] discloses:
FI computing system 130 may perform operations that generate a product notification characterizing the available, and pre-approved, secure credit product and one or more determined terms and conditions, and provision the product notification to a device operable by user 101, such as client device 102, in real-time and contemporaneously with an interception of receipt of each of plurality of RFP messages and in some instances, prior to an execution of a requested, real-time payment associated with at least one of the RFP messages, e.g., while user 101 continues to shop for products or services and continues to initiate purchase transactions consistent with the determined customer intent or purpose. (emphasis added)
It is not clear whether “transmit in real-time” in the claims refers to transmitting the notification “contemporaneously with an interception of receipt of each of plurality of RFP messages” or at the time of “a real-time payment.” Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 14-19 and 21-22 are rejected for incorporating the limitations of the rejected claims 1, 13 and 20.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minyard (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0097491), in view of Moorthy (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0042920,) further in view of Grigg (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0006128.)
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 20, Minyard teach:
receive a plurality of messages associated with a first set of data exchanges via the communications interface, each of the messages being associated with a corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges initiated between a first counterparty and a corresponding second counterparty during a first temporal interval, (buyer and seller plurality of conversation messages on a marketplace platform at any given time: [0016]-[0019], [0049])
each of the messages…structured in accordance with a standardized data-exchange protocol, (the system uses communication standards: [0045], [0062]-[0063])
Minyard does not explicitly teach a request-for-payment message, however, the claim recitation “a request-for-payment message” merely indicates a type of the message that does not, in any way, affect the claimed features and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
and each of the messages comprising elements of message data that are disposed within corresponding message fields, (data elements of messages are identified: [0068]-[0073])
and that include a first value of at least one parameter characterizing the corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges initiated between the first counterparty and the corresponding second counterparty… (messages between buyers and sellers: [0016]-[0019], [0049], message data elements include various data such as seller/buyer names and product data (i.e., at least one parameter value): [0101]-[0102]))
based on the elements of message data, perform operations that generate contextual data associated with at least one of the first counterparty or the first set of data exchanges, and that predict an occurrence of at least one second data exchange that involves the first counterparty and that is consistent with the contextual data… (forecasting/predicting transaction intent: [0017]-[0018], transaction intent predictor module 46, [0038], [0050], [0053], [0056]-[0058])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation: “contextual data associated with at least one of the first counterparty or the first set of data exchanges,” (emphasis added) indicates an optional recitation separated with “or” and for a prior art to teach claim recitation, it is sufficient to teach either of the options of “contextual data associated with the first counterparty” or “contextual data associated with the first set of data exchanges.”
transmit notification data to the device via the communications interface prior to an execution of at least one of the first data exchanges initiated between the first counterparty and the corresponding second counterparty. (potential transaction deals provided to the client device (i.e., notification): [0040], [0051], communication between buyer and seller based on potential transaction data: [0051], [0100])
In addition, with respect to claims 1 and 20, Minyard teach:
a communications interface; a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the communications interface and to the memory…(FIG. 2, [0037]-[0042])
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by at least one processor…(FIG. 2, [0037]-[0042])
Minyard do not explicitly teach:
receive the plurality of messages during a first temporal interval, each of the first set of data exchanges being initiated during the first temporal interval,
predict the occurrence of the at least one second data exchange during a second temporal interval, the second temporal interval being disposed subsequent to the first temporal interval,
generate product data characterizing a product that is available to the first counterparty and associated with the predicted occurrence of the at least one second data exchange, and transmit, in real-time upon receipt of the plurality of messages, notification data that includes the product data to a device operable by the first counterparty, the notification data causing an application program executed at the device to present a portion of the product data within a digital interface, prior to an execution of at least one of the initiated first set of data exchanges.
However, Moorthy teach:
receive the plurality of messages during a first temporal interval, each of the first set of data exchanges being initiated during the first temporal interval, (offer collection period time interval: [0037], [0058])
predict the occurrence of the at least one second data exchange during a second temporal interval, the second temporal interval being disposed subsequent to the first temporal interval, (target interval, in the future: [0156], [0198], [0200], [0221])
generate product data characterizing a product that is available to the first counterparty and associated with the predicted occurrence of the at least one second data exchange…(generate resource (i.e., product) offer based on a prediction system data: [0185], [0187], [0207], [0220]-[0221])
transmit, via the communications interface, notification data that includes the product data to a device operable by the first counterparty, (resource offer notification is transmitted to user via an application: FIG. 10, [0231])
the notification data causing an application program executed at the device to present a portion of the product data within a digital interface… (FIG. 11, [0232]-[0235])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate generating resource offers using a prediction model, as taught by Moorthy , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard , in order to optimally provide resource offers based on demand. (Moorthy : Abstract, [0027])
Minyard and Moorthy do not explicitly teach:
transmitting, in real-time upon receipt of the plurality of messages, notification data that includes the product data to a device operable by the first counterparty,
the notification data causing an application program executed at the device to present a portion of the product data within a digital interface, prior to an execution of at least one of the initiated first set of data exchanges.
The examiner notes that “the notification data causing an application program executed at the device to present a portion of the product data within a digital interface, prior to an execution of at least one of the initiated first data exchanges,” is interpreted as an offer being presented to a user (a counterparty) prior to a payment transaction being performed by the counterparty.
Grigg teaches:
transmitting, in real-time upon receipt of the plurality of messages, notification data that includes the product data to a device operable by the first counterparty,
(providing an offer (i.e., a notification) to a user (i.e., counterparty) via an application executed on user’s mobile device in real-time: [0077]-[0083], [0085])
the notification data causing an application program executed at the device to present a portion of the product data within a digital interface, prior to an execution of at least one of the initiated first set of data exchanges. (offer (notification) provided to user before checkout (prior to execution of a first data exchange): [0077])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate providing a real-time offer to a shopper before checkout, as taught by Grigg , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard and Moorthy , in order to provide product offers to a user during a shopping experience. (Grigg: Abstract)
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
obtain, from the memory, mapping data associated with the message fields of the messages; (transaction intent model comprising a plurality of rules (i.e., mappings) obtained from a database: [0050], [0053])
for each of the messages, perform operations that obtain the elements of message data from corresponding ones of the message fields based on the mapping data; (extracting data elements from messages: [0070], [0106], [0108], claim 2)
store the elements of message data associated with each of the messages within the memory, (data elements and metadata are stored in a database: [0091])
the elements of message data comprising, for a corresponding one of the messages, a first identifier of the first counterparty, a second identifier of the corresponding second counterparty, and the at least one parameter value of the corresponding first data exchange. (message data elements include various data such as seller/buyer names (i.e., first and second parties identifier) product data (i.e., parameter value): [0101]-[0102])
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claims 2 and 14.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
the mapping data comprises elements that identify corresponding ones of the elements of the message data and corresponding ones of the message fields. (transaction intent model comprising a plurality of rules (i.e., mappings) corresponding to data elements: [0059]- [0060])
With respect to claim 7, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Moorthy teach:
generate elements of aggregated data characterizing the first set of data exchanges initiated during the first temporal interval, the elements of aggregated data comprising temporal information identifying the first temporal interval and a first aggregated value of a parameter characterizing the first set of data exchanges. (generate temporal data by assigning timestamps: [0058], [0071], [0192]-[0196])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate generating resource offers using a prediction model, as taught by Moorthy , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard , in order to optimally provide resource offers based on demand. (Moorthy : Abstract, [0027])
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claims 7 and 17.
Moreover, Moorthy teach:
determine a second aggregated value of the parameter that characterizes the predicted occurrence of the at least one second data exchange during the second temporal interval; (predict resource inventory at a future time: [0132], [0134], [0152], [0156], [0198])
determine that the product is available to the first counterparty based on the first and second aggregated parameter values. (predict resource inventory at a future time: [0132], [0134], [0152], [0156], [0198])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate generating resource offers using a prediction model, as taught by Moorthy , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard , in order to optimally provide resource offers based on demand. (Moorthy : Abstract, [0027])
With respect to claim 9, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claim 7.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset comprising one or more of the elements of message data and one or more of the elements of aggregated data; ([0017], [0055], [0067]-[0068], [0081], [0097]-[0098], claim 3)
based on the application of the trained machine-learning or artificial- intelligence process to the input dataset, generate output data characterizing the predicted occurrence the at least one second data exchange during the second temporal interval. ([0017], [0055], [0067]-[0068], [0081], [0097]-[0098], claim 3)
In addition, Moorthy teach:
apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset comprising one or more of the elements of message data and one or more of the elements of aggregated data; ([0032], [0040], [0128]-[0129])
based on the application of the trained machine-learning or artificial- intelligence process to the input dataset, generate output data characterizing the predicted occurrence the at least one second data exchange during the second temporal interval. ([0032], [0040], [0128]-[0129])
With respect to claims 10 and 19, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claims 7 and 17.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset comprising one or more of the elements of message data and one or more of the elements of aggregated data; ([0017], [0055], [0067]-[0068], [0081], [0097]-[0098], claim 3)
based on the application of the trained machine-learning or artificial- intelligence process to the input dataset, generate output data characterizing the predicted occurrence the at least one second data exchange during the second temporal interval. ([0017], [0055], [0067]-[0068], [0081], [0097]-[0098], claim 3)
In addition, Moorthy teach:
apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset comprising one or more of the elements of message data, one or more of the elements of aggregated data, and one or more elements of additional data characterizing the first counterparty; ([0032], [0040], [0128]-[0129])
generate at least a portion of the contextual data based on the application of the trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to the input dataset. ([0032], [0040], [0128]-[0129])
With respect to claim 11, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
the product data comprises a product identifier and information specifying a term or condition of the product; (Fig. 6, [0103])
the notification data comprises an element of digital content associated with the product; (Fig. 6, [0103])
the notification data causes the executed application program to present at least the portion of the product data and the element of digital content within the digital interface. (Fig. 6, [0103])
In addition, Moorthy teach:
the product data comprises a product identifier and information specifying a term or condition of the product; ([0038]-[0040], [0042]-0043], [0059]-[0060], [0091], [0135]-[0136], [0165]-[0169])
the notification data comprises an element of digital content associated with the product; ([0038]-[0040], [0042]-0043], [0059]-[0060], [0091], [0135]-[0136], [0165]-[0169])
the notification data causes the executed application program to present at least the portion of the product data and the element of digital content within the digital interface. (([0038]-[0040], [0042]-0043], [0059]-[0060], [0091], [0135]-[0136], [0165]-[0169], [0245], [0252])
The examiner notes that the claim recitations “the product data comprises a product identifier and information specifying a term or condition of the product,” and “the notification data comprises an element of digital content associated with the product,” indicate non-functional descriptive material that merely describe product data and therefore do not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claims 17 and 21, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claims 13 and 1, respectively.
Moreover, Moorthy teach:
the receiving comprises receiving the plurality of messages during the first temporal interval; (offer collection time interval: [0037], [0058])
generating, using the at least one processor, elements of aggregated data characterizing the first set of data exchanges initiated during the first temporal interval, the elements of aggregated data comprising temporal information identifying the first temporal interval and a first aggregated value of a parameter characterizing the first set of data exchanges; (generate temporal data by assigning timestamps: [0058], [0071], [0192]-[0196])
performing operations, using the at least one processor, that predict the occurrence of the at least one second data exchange during the second temporal interval; (target interval, in the future: [0156], [0198], [0200], [0221])
the transmitting comprises transmitting the notification data to the device during the first temporal interval. (notification is transmitted at step 1036 of FIG. 10: [0231], FIG. 10 is associated with offer collection time interval between a start timestamp and an end timestamp (i.e. first interval): [0196])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate generating resource offers using a prediction model, as taught by Moorthy , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard , in order to optimally provide resource offers based on demand. (Moorthy : Abstract, [0027])
Claims 4-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minyard , in view of Moorthy and Grigg , further in view of Bose (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0042830.)
With respect to claim 4, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claim 2.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
obtain, based on the mapping data, information associated with the corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges from one or more of the message fields of a corresponding one of the messages, (extracting data elements from messages: [0070], [0106], [0108], claim 2)
Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg do not explicitly teach
the information comprising a uniform resource locator associated with elements of formatted data maintained by a computing system.
However, Bose teach:
message information comprising a uniform resource locator associated with elements of formatted data maintained by a computing system. ([0101]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate accessing URL links from within messages, as taught by Bose , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg , in order to obtain data from URL links provided within a message. (Bose : Abstract, [0009]-[0010])
With respect to claim 5, Minyard , Moorthy , Grigg and Bose teach the limitations of claim 4.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
process the one or more elements of formatted data, and obtain at least one of (i) an additional parameter value characterizing the first data exchange associated with the corresponding message from the processed elements of formatted data or (ii) one or more elements of contextual data that characterize the first data exchange associated with the corresponding message based on the processed elements of formatted data. (extracting information from formatted data: [0086]-[0088])
In addition, Bose teach:
based on the uniform resource locator, perform operations that request and receive one or more of the elements of formatted data from the computing system via the communications interface; (access messages via a browser using a URL: [0100]-[0102])
With respect to claim 16, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claim 14.
Moreover, Minyard teach:
based on the mapping data, obtaining, using the at least one processor, information associated with the corresponding one of the first set of data exchanges from one or more of the message fields of a corresponding one of the messages… (extracting data elements from messages: [0070], [0106], [0108], claim 2)
processing the one or more elements of formatted data, and obtaining at least one of (i) an additional parameter value characterizing the first data exchange associated with the corresponding message from the processed elements of formatted data or (ii) one or more elements of additional contextual data that characterize the first data exchange associated with the corresponding message based on the processed elements of formatted data. (extracting information from formatted data: [0086]-[0088])
Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg do not explicitly teach
the information comprising a uniform resource locator associated with elements of formatted data maintained by a computing system;
based on the uniform resource locator, performing operations, using the at least one processor, that request and receive one or more of the elements of formatted data from the computing system; and using the at least one processor,
However, Bose teach:
message information comprising a uniform resource locator associated with elements of formatted data maintained by a computing system. ([0101]
based on the uniform resource locator, perform operations that request and receive one or more of the elements of formatted data from the computing system via the communications interface; (access messages via a browser using a URL: [0100]-[0102])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate accessing URL links from within messages, as taught by Bose , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg , in order to obtain data from URL links provided within a message. (Bose : Abstract, [0009]-[0010])
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minyard , in view of Moorthy and Grigg , further in view of Dalton (US Patent No. 10,699,289.)
With respect to claim 22, Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg teach the limitations of claim 1.
Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg do not explicitly teach; however, Dalton teach:
each of the first data exchanges is associated with a real-time payment requested from the first counterparty and by the corresponding second counterparty; (real-time payment: Col. 18 ll. 25-46)
the occurrence of the at least one second data exchange is associated with a request for a real-time payment from the first counterparty during the second temporal interval. (offer engine provides incentive offers (i.e., second data exchange) : Col. 12 ll. 31-49)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate real-time payment offers based on payment request messages, as taught by Dalton , into the marketplace conversation analysis and transaction intent prediction of Minyard , Moorthy and Grigg , in order to provide offers in real-time. (Dalton : Abstract, Col. 1 ll. 15-26)
Minyard , Moorthy, Grigg and Dalton do not explicitly teach:
the standardized data-exchange protocol comprises an ISO 20022 compliant
data-exchange protocol.
However, the claim recitation indicates non-functional descriptive material that merely describes data and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571)272-7575. 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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698