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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received September 23, 2025. Claim(s) 16 has been canceled. Claims 1, 14 and 19 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application 17879591 filed 08/02/2022 is a Continuation in Part of 17877423 filed 07/29/2022 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63227218 , filed 07/29/2021.
Applicant Name/Assignee: NCR Voyix Corporation
Inventor(s): Dolezal, Robert
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach a “channel manager” that organizes transaction data sets, identifies portions for transmission to specific parties or determines encryption requirements based on party specific profiles. Applicant is arguing limitations not claimed. The claim limitations recite applying a device processor to identify a first portion of a subset of transaction data. Applicant is arguing limitations that have not been prosecuted. See rejection below.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references focus on different technical problems and solutions. Specifically, the prior art Salisbury addresses data chunking in interconnects, while the claimed invention addresses data security and management. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. The specification discloses that the focus of the invention is to provide information encodings (and transmission techniques which include segmenting data provided by first and second party into respective subsets where each subset is segmented into portions that are designated for a particular party. A determination is made as to whether each portion is to be encoded into a data structure (barcode, QR code-¶ 0003), a sequence of data structures or not encoded at all and an optimal communication channel is selected for providing corresponding portions (see para 0007). The claim limitations “identifying portions of a subset of transaction data associated with a pending transaction”, “assigning a portion for transmission…”, “determining a communication channel for delivering first portion to receiving party…”, “selecting communication channel”, “encoding first portion in a sequence of codes for display…”, “codes are shifted to avoid glare”, “a channel manager organizes each party’s subset of data, identifies which portion of each subset are to be transmitted and determined whether each portion requires encryption based on profile”, “cause first portion to be provided over transmission channel to receiving party”. Although the claim limitations do recite a single process for encrypting portions of data it is conditional and not the main purpose of the claimed limitations as it is merely a condition applied for some transmissions of data. Accordingly the claimed limitations are not for the purpose of addressing data security. With respect to data management, as being the focus of the claimed limitations, the examiner disagrees. The focus of the limitations is to transmit data between parties where the data is transmitted in portions and a first portion is assigned and encoded (barcode/QR code) for transmission and communication channels are selected based on network evaluation for factors associated with data transmission over networks. Salisbury is directed toward transmitting data between parties where the data is transmitted in portions in order to control the transmission of data in determined and selected communication channels based on evaluation of network conditions. The examiner is not persuaded that Salisbury teaches away from the claimed limitations.
In the remarks applicant argues that the combination of references are improper based on the references Schlicht and Rhoads address different technical fields and problems. With respect to Schlicht applicant’s argument is not persuasive, both Salisbury and Schlicht teach selecting communication channels based on evaluation of available communication channels Schlicht teaches that there is a need to allow seamless routing of data in order to provide quality service in transmission carrier service. With respect to Rhoads, applying barcodes for transmission of data in order to provide voluminous information using image data where the data can be distilled into pixel images for transmission over a channel keeping cost of transmission reasonable with corresponding bandwidth capacity (pge 49).
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references (Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads and Martin) applied for claims 2 and 4-5 fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 and therefore is allowable over the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references (Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads and Kazal) applied for claim 3 fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 and therefore is allowable over the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references (Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads and Martin) applied for claims 2 and 4-5 fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 and therefore is allowable over the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references (Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads and Veselov) applied for claims 8-11 fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 and therefore is allowable over the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references (Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads, Martin and Paul) applied for claim 12 fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 and therefore is allowable over the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references (Salisbury, Schlicht, Lam, Dickelman, Shifman and Rhoads) applied for claims 14-15 and 17-18 fail to cure the deficiencies similar to the rejection of claim 1 and therefore is allowable over the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation “wherein the cloud-based transaction processing service prevents a payee from intentionally or inadvertently requesting a payment amount that exceeds a transaction payment amount for the transaction because the transaction processing service receives an explicit payment authorization from a payer after providing the payer an invoice and a transaction amount due” of claim 14. Applicant is arguing limitations that have not been prosecuted. See response below.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “preventing payees from requesting excessive payment amounts though authorization mechanisms”. Specifically applicant argues the prior art references focus on data transmission and do not address preventing payment fraud. Applicant is arguing limitations that have not been prosecuted see rejection below.
In the remarks applicant argues that the combination of six references is improper, as the previous Office Action fails to provide adequate motivation for combining all six references in the rejection of claim 14. Applicant fails to provide how the combination of references is improper (see MPEP 2145)
In the remarks applicant argues the cited references address different technical problems in disparate fields accordingly one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the prior art references. Applicant fails to provide rebuttal with respect to non-motivation to combine the references (see MPEP 2145)
In the remarks applicant argues with respect to claim 19 that the prior art references fail to teach the every elements of the claims and traverses the reasons for obviousness. Applicant fails to point to the elements that the prior art references fail to teach. (see MPEP 2145).
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach encryption management of claim 19, applicant is arguing limitations not prosecuted, see response below. Applicant is arguing optional limitations which carry no patentable weight.
In the remarks applicant argues the combination of the prior art references do not provide adequate motivation to arrive as the claimed selective encryption. Applicant is arguing limitations not prosecuted. See response below.
In the remarks applicant argues with respect to claim 20, that the prior art references (Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads and Kazal) fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 19. Applicant is arguing limitations not previously prosecuted. See response below.
Claim Interpretation
Cloud computing: a network of remote servers hosted on the internet to store, manage, and process data, rather than a local server or a personal computer. in light of the specification, (para 0090), the examiner is interpreting the language “sensitivity” to be analogous to degree of security of channels.
With respect to the claim language “sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation”, the examiner is interpreting the “sequence of codes “ by its ordinary meaning:
A time sequence barcode is a type of barcode that contains a series of numbers or characters arranged in a specific order. These barcodes are commonly used for inventory management, asset tracking, and product labeling purposes
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 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claim(s) 14-15 and 17:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 14 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 14 recites method steps 1) receiving data, 2) identifying transaction data transferred 3) determining one or more channels to transmit data portion according to evaluation channels 4) selecting on of available channels 5) encoding portion of data in sequence of codes (QR code type technology) for display 6) avoid pixel glare, occlusion or defective by shifting QR in different positions 7) preventing payment amount according to criteria for transaction 8) transmit second portion data using channels 9) using first portion of data to process the transaction. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a transaction activity. When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction activity and risk mitigation. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “cloud-based transaction processing service”, “local networks”, “optical or electromagnetic or air pressure wave channel, graphical components”, “channel manager” and “interfaces”.
The “cloud-based transaction processing service” applied to perform the operations of “receiving…data”, and “interfaces” applied to transmit data using channels which according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitation “receiving…data” and “transmit …[data]” performed by the “cloud-based transaction processing service” respectively are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “cloud-based transaction processing service” is further applied to perform the operation of “identify…portion of transaction data to be …transferred”, “determining …one or more channels for …” first and second party “to directly transfer…second portion based on available …networks…sensitivity level associated with the second portion…”, “selecting one of an optical channel, an electromagnetic modulation channel or an air pressure wave channel based on the evaluation”, “encoding the second portion in a sequence of codes for display…”, “prevents a payee from intentionally or inadvertently requesting a payment amount that exceeds a transaction payment amount for the transaction” and “using first portion to process the transaction…” which are processes directed toward applying the “cloud-based transaction processing service” to perform processes of a transaction activity and not toward improvement technology, provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in technology” or where the transaction process imposes meaningful limits upon the technology recited in the claim.
The additional element “channel manager” is applied for performing the evaluation that selects optimal channel” which is merely performs a transaction process for transaction data transmission.
The additional element one or more channels are applied in order to transmit transaction data lacking technical description for use in transmitting data.
The additional element recited in the claim includes “graphical component” for use within each code of the sequence of codes are shifted to avoid “glare, occlusion or defective pixels” lacking technical details of implementation. Instead the additional element is recited for an expected outcome of shifting positions to avoid data distortion displayed in the transaction process. The “interfaces” recited to uses first portion [data] to process the transaction a commercial activity.
The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as an ordered combination or as a whole, the combination of limitations, the combination of limitations 1-2 are directed toward sending instructions to capture an image, generate an image file, store the image and received the image captured which is directed toward insignificant extra solution activity of capturing an image, storing, capturing/scanning image, extracting data from a physical document and receiving captured data which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II).
The combination of steps performed by the cloud-based transaction processing service in limitations 1-4 is directed toward applying the additional element to perform a transaction process of receiving transaction data, where portions of data is identified for transfer between parties of the transaction based on the parties profile settings and then determining the channels (routes) to apply in the transmission of portions of the transaction data by evaluating the channels based on available networks, bandwidth, device capabilities and sensitivity level of data portions which is merely applying technology to transmit transaction data based on transaction parties profile settings and using the additional element is applied to select optimal channel for transmitting transaction data portions identified from one of any type of channel options evaluated. The combination is not directed toward improving existing networks, device capabilities, routing capability or technology of the channels applied to transmit the data or the cloud based transaction processing service or any other indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2. The combination of limitations 1-4 and steps 5-6 where the cloud-based transaction processing service is applied to encode second portions of transaction data in a sequence of codes for display where the sequence of codes is shifted at a high level of generality in order to avoid in the display glare, occlusion or defective pixels. The shifting is recited at a high level of generality lacking technical disclosure to display data for display quality – which when considered as a combinations is directed toward data output without any details of technical implementation. The combination of steps 7-9 is directed toward applying the cloud-based transaction processing service to prevent fraud based on transaction amount criteria after receiving the invoice and transaction amount and using the first portion of data to process the transaction on behalf of data transmitted by instructed interfaces associated with the transaction parties using the selected one or more channels which is merely applying technology to perform a transaction process.
When considered as a whole or ordered combination the combination of limitations 1-9 is directed toward a transaction process which identifies portions of data to encode and transmit using selected optimal channel based on channel evaluation and the prevention of fraud based on transaction amount thresholds and invoice data where the data transmitted is used to process the transaction and instructing interfaces to avoid noise contributors in displaying data in a transaction process.
The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2, but instead a transaction activity which includes selecting optimal channels for transmission according to evaluation of channels and to prevent fraud. MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h). The claim limitations as a whole, as an ordered combination and the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited by the mobile device in the claims recite the concept of a financial activity and risk mitigation. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, or as a combination, the operation performed by the mobile device processor and communication unit at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The resource claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “cloud based transaction processing service”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The specification describes providing information encodings and transmissions of transaction data where the first and second party data transmitted is transmitted in portions and a determination of each portion is encoded in a sequence of data structures where the data portions of each party is applied for completing the transaction (para 0007-0008) The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “cloud-based transaction processing service”, “local networks”, “optical or electromagnetic or air pressure wave channel, graphical components”, “channel manager” and “interfaces”. Taking the claim elements separately, the steps performed by the cloud-based transaction processing service”, “local networks”, “optical or electromagnetic or air pressure wave channel, graphical components”, “channel manager” and “interfaces”. at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a cloud-based transaction processing service to perform the operations of receiving data, identifying data portions to be transferred between parties , determining, evaluating and selecting optimal channels for from a plurality of one or more channels for data transmission, encoding data in a sequence of codes for display, avoid noise in data display by shifting codes to different positions by interfaces, preventing fraud based on transaction amounts and invoices, using data portions transmitted by interfaces for a transaction ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer processing and interface technology.
Referencing Alice, the claim limitations recited at a high level to perform an abstract idea is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic compute to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the claimed additional elements offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers... . The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means... . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these device and transmission channel functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “ “instructing interface”... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose cloud-based processing service and interface without special programming or transmission channel for providing data. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these functional processes of the device and transmission channel. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
With respect to the cloud-based transaction processing service, the specification discloses:
[0034] Referring to FIG. 1 B, system 100B includes a cloud 110 or a server 100 and a plurality of party-operated devices 120. Cloud 110 includes a processor 111 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 112, which includes instructions for a transaction processing service 113, Application Programming Interfaces (APls) 114, and, optionally, a channel manager 115. When the instructions are provided to or obtained by processor 111, this causes processor 111 to perform operations discussed herein and below for 113-115. Each party-operated device 120 includes a processor 121 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 122, which includes instructions for a transaction interface 123, an encode/decode information manager 124, and a channel manager 125. When the instructions are provided to or obtained by processor 121, this causes processor 121 to perform operations discussed herein and below for 123-124.
The specification discloses what the services of the cloud based processing service does but does not provide any technical details as to the structure or architecture of the “cloud based processing service” or any details related to its programming. (see para 0033, para 0044, para 0083)
With respect to the claimed “interface”, the specification discloses:
[0034] Referring to FIG. 1 B, system 100B includes a cloud 110 or a server 100 and a plurality of party-operated devices 120. Cloud 110 includes a processor 111 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 112, which includes instructions for a transaction processing service 113, Application Programming Interfaces (APls) 114, and, optionally, a channel manager 115. When the instructions are provided to or obtained by processor 111, this causes processor 111 to perform operations discussed herein and below for 113-115. Each party-operated device 120 includes a processor 121 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 122, which includes instructions for a transaction interface 123, an encode/decode information manager 124, and a channel manager 125. When the instructions are provided to or obtained by processor 121, this causes processor 121 to perform operations discussed herein and below for 123-124.
[0060] In an embodiment, once the data requiring encoding and/or encryption and the portions of the subset of transaction data are designated to be transmitted to a given party using a selected channel, channel manager 125 interacts with transaction interface 125 to provide any needed instructions to the corresponding payer or payee needed for the transmission….
[0066]… The software module(s) that implements the method 200 is referred to as a "transaction interface." The transaction interface is implemented as executable instructions programmed and residing within memory and/or a non-transitory computer-readable (processor-readable) storage medium and executed by one or more processors of a device or set of devices. The processor(s) of the device(s) that executes the transaction interface are specifically configured and programmed to process the transaction interface. The transaction interface may have access to one or more network connections during its processing. The network connections can be wired, wireless, or a combination of wired and wireless.
Please note the specification discloses generic computer element for the purpose of performing the operations of the process to transmit data.
See Bilski
U.S. Pat. No. 5,974,460 describes selecting one of a number of mirror sites on the internet for downloading data by first determining which of the sites exhibits the best transfer rates at the time of the site selection. U.S. Pat. No. 5,341,477 is similar.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,543 describes routing across a network taking into account the transmission costs. Other patents taking into account transmission costs are U.S. Pat. No, 6,535,488 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,487,286. U.S. Pat. No. 5,521,910 shows packets in canonical frame format, and determining a best path through a network using various metrics. U.S. Pat. No. 6,839,700 describes load balancing of content requests based on document generation costs. U.S. Pat. No. 6,460,120 shows a network processor that with the first three layers of the OSI model. A processor, which accesses layers 4 and above for flow control, to make routing decisions based on quality of service, is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,430,184. This allows distinguishing between priority-based email and bandwidth--guarantee-based multimedia.
US Pub No. 2017/0005919 A1 by Wang et al wherein the prior art discloses “a threshold set are used to determine if the path bandwidth is too small, the path delay is too long, or any change of the connection. The step of detection goes on, as shown in step S801, when the detection result is within a normal range as compared with the history records or a threshold. Otherwise, if any abnormal condition is found, e.g. broken connection, such as in step S805, a backup spanning tree is switched on according to the rank as evaluated based on the values of the spanning trees’, US Pub No. 2015/0074262 A1 by Antony wherein the prior art discloses “network switch 104B having network traffic less than the threshold value is selected to route the network traffic associated with VM 118 on host computing system’;
US Pub No. 2012/0087241 A1 by Sand et al wherein the prior art discloses “predetermined traffic type comprises determining whether bandwidth required by the new flow added to monitored allocation of bandwidth for the predetermined traffic type on each of the communication links of the selected path for which the respective threshold has been set would exceed the respective threshold for the predetermined traffic type on the each communication link.”, US Patent No. 8,040,808 B1 by Kasturi et al wherein the prior art discloses “Cost factor collection module 48 may determine an available bandwidth by monitoring both incoming and outing traffic sent via each link per unit of time and subtract this calculated bandwidth from a total bandwidth value, thereby determining available bandwidth. The total bandwidth may be established as a constant through a service contract with the carrier and cost factor collection module 48 may learn of this total bandwidth upon establishing the first connection over each of links 16A, 16B.”;
US Pub No. 2008/0285560 A1 by Curtis et al- discloses “Quality of Service ("QoS") may also be a factor in determining an optimum network path. QoS of a route or link in a route can be based on many factors including (a) the bandwidth of each link...(c) specification of maximum latency or wait of the message packet within a router before forwarding to the next hop. ... Some messages or bulk data transfers may need or warrant greater network bandwidth than others. This may result from a specification of QoS in a contract between a customer (who is sending the message or bulk data) and a service provider which is furnishing or managing part or all of the network which is used for the transmission’.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 15 and 17 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 14. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 14. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward receiving a subset of transaction data from a second party and second subset of transaction data from a second party and receiving first portion of data- insignificant extra solution activity and sales activity. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward receiving available local networks/bandwidths and data sizes- a common technical application in communications- as evidence the examiner provides US Patent No. 10,439,956 B1 by Salour et al; US Patent No. 9,906,985 by Stephenne et al; The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 14. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 15 and 17 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7; Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury) in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht) in view of US Patent No. 9,253,055 B2 by Nelke et al (Nelke) and further in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads)
In reference to Claim 1:
Salisbury teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method ((Salisbury) in at least Col 2 lines 8-43), comprising:
Identifying, by a device comprising a processor, a first portion of a subset of transaction data associated with a pending transaction based on a sending party to the pending transaction ((Salisbury) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 8-51, Col 4 lines 31-52, Col 6 lines 3-38, Col 12 lines 48-67);
assigning the first portion for transmission to a receiving party ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 10; Col 26 lines 52-67, Col 27 lines 15-22, Col 28 lines 31-57);
determining by the device, a transmission channel for delivering the first portion to the receiving party based on an evaluation of available networks, network loads, and data sizes associated with the first portion, wherein the evaluation is performed by a channel manager configured to select an optimal channel based on real-time network conditions ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 1; Abstract wherein the prior art teaches on-chip interconnect control circuitry to receive request, supports returning requested data items in a number of data transfers, with an order of data items generating chunk identifying information; Col 5 lines 22-Col 6 lines 1-2 wherein the prior art teaches performing checks for enforcing ordering requirements and coherency, check determining target computer capability; Col 6 lines 38-Col 7 lines 1-3, Col 7 lines 39-Col 8 lines 1-39, Col 8 lines 49-Col 9 lines 1-5, Col 9 lines 33- Col 10 lines 1-32 wherein the prior art teaches the control circuitry of the interconnect reading the request indicating data items return order in different subsets; Col 11 lines 43-Col 12 lines 1-12 wherein the prior art teaches on-chip interconnect providing design specification data which identifies properties of devices, specifying data sizes, expected level of network traffic and to select parameters within the interconnect for those components (transmission channel widths, number of parallel channels, etc); Col 12 lines 41-67 wherein the prior art teaches an on-chip integrated circuit control circuitry for routing data request and responses, Col 13 lines 40-Col 14 lines 1-41 wherein the prior art teaches the interconnect used for routing of transaction to a target completer selected based on target address and teaches the interconnect is implemented as a network chip which comprises number of routers for coupling number of requester interfaces to identify the particular route to be taken on the network chip ; Col 15 lines 3-Col 16 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches interface controlling allocation of resource and issuing of requests based on availability of space in buffers and quality of service requirements; Col 14 lines 65-Col 15 lines 1-47 wherein the prior art teaches topology in which routers are connected may be selected based on expected bandwidth requirements for pairs of interfaces, Col 21 lines 55-Col 22 lines 1-8, Col 27 lines 15-39), …
wherein the channel manager organizes each party's subset of data and identifies which portions of each subset are to be transmitted to which party ((Salisbury) in at least Col 13 lines 40-50, Col 15 lines 65-Col 16 lines 1-15, Col 15 lines 25-35, Col 19 lines 38-65, Col 21 lines 55-67, Col 22 lines 17-35), …
causing the first portion to be provided over the transmission channel to the receiving party, wherein the first portion is encoded in the sequence of codes, each code in the sequence of codes including non-overlapping or overlapping data from a preceding code in sequence of codes((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 8; Col 1 lines 37-64 wherein the prior art teaches transferring plurality of data items; Col 2 lines 17-52, Col 3 lines 33-55 wherein the prior art teaches data items encoded and the data items are returned in ascending address order where addresses extend from a midpoint address to the end of a sequence of addresses and then wrap around to start of the sequence of addresses, Col 6 lines 28-Col 7 lines 1-4, Col 13 lines 52-Col 14 lines 1-15, Col 15 lines 32-47, Col 17 lines 11-20, Col 19 lines 1-53, Col 25 lines 20-53, Col 27 lines 1-14, Col 30 lines 35-61).
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining further includes: selecting one of an optical channel, an electromagnetic modulation channel or air pressure wave channel based on the evaluation of available networks, network bandwidths or device capabilities;
encoding the first portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display, wherein graphical components within each code of the sequence of codes are actively shifted to different positions over time to avoid at least one of glare, occlusion, or defective pixels…
and determines based on the party whether each of the portions require encryption or no encryption based on a profile associated with the corresponding party maintained by a transaction interface;
Schlicht teaches:
wherein determining further includes: selecting one of an optical channel, an electromagnetic modulation channel or air pressure wave channel based on the evaluation of available networks, network bandwidths or device capabilities ((Schlicht) in at least para 0025, para 0072-0073, para 0174, para 0222, para 0843, para 1247, para 1249-1251, para 1257, para 1261, para 1268, para 1274, para 1276, para 1279-1280, para 1287-1288, para 1290-1292, para 1294-1295, para 1303, para 1309, para 1311, para 1314, para 1320, para 1327-1328, para 1331, para 1333-1334, para 1338, para 1344-1345, para 1364);
According to KSR, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is common sense rationale of obviousness. The prior art Salisbury differed from the claimed method by the substitution of one communication channel medium for another. The prior art Schlicht provides evidence that communication channels for selection can include any of a number of different mediums in which data can be transmitted and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known communication channel medium for data transmission for another and the substitution would have been predictable.
Both Salisbury and Schlicht are directed toward the communication over selected network based on conditions in the networks or devices. Schlicht teaches the motivation of when a communication topology with a plurality of network communication nodes for select that there is a need to provide carrier grade QoS in mobile networks thereby allowing routing of data allowing seamless integration to the fixed internet through mobile access points. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify process for selection of network communications of Salisbury to include the selection process of alternative communications nodes as taught by Schlicht since Schlicht teaches the motivation of when a communication topology with a plurality of network communication nodes for select that there is a need to provide carrier grade QoS in mobile networks thereby allowing routing of data allowing seamless integration to the fixed internet through mobile access points.
Rhoads teaches:
encoding the first portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display ((Rhoads) in at least page 10 lines 8-19, page 19 lines 24-27, page 21 lines 18-26, page 22 lines 6-9, page 27 lines 24-page 28 lines 1-3, page 30 lines 5-9, page 116 lines 1-11, page 146 lines 8-35, page 156 lines 8-14, page 168 lines 15-35, page 170 lines 6-35):
wherein graphical components within each code of the sequence of codes are actively shifted to different positions over time to avoid at least one of glare, occlusion, or defective pixels ((Rhoads) in at least page 10 lines 8-19, page 19 lines 24-27, page 21 lines 18-26, page 22 lines 6-9, page 27 lines 24-page 28 lines 1-3, page 30 lines 5-9, page 116 lines 1-11, page 128 lines 3-15, page 145 lines 26-31, page 146 lines 8-35, page 155 lines 4-28, page 156 lines 8-14, page 168 lines 15-35, page 170 lines 6-35)
According to KSR, common sense rationale, when all claimed elements were known in prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results the combination is obvious. The prior art included each claimed element although not necessarily in a single prior art reference with the only differences being the lack of actual combination of visual display issues outputted at a destination device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the claimed elements of the prior art by known methods and that in combination each element performs same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable.
Both Salisbury and Rhoads teach communicating data where data can be outputted at the destination device. Rhoads teaches the motivation of sending from the device raw pixel visual data so that data for viewing may be extracted and processed using Fourier-Mellin transform, filtering, affine distortion, gabor transform and other signal operations as a means to characterize image components in order to identify data imaging elements for use in image distortion in the output can be fixed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify the data communicated of Salisbury to include the sending of visual data instructions related to data extraction and processing of Rhoads since Rhoads teaches the motivation of sending from the device raw pixel visual data so that data for viewing may be extracted and processed using Fourier-Mellin transform, filtering, affine distortion, gabor transform and other signal operations as a means to characterize image components in order to identify data imaging elements for use in image distortion in the output can be fixed.
Nelke teaches:
wherein the channel manager organizes each party's subset of data and identifies which portions of each subset are to be transmitted to which party and determines based on the party whether each of the portions require encryption or no encryption based on a profile associated with the corresponding party maintained by a transaction interface ((Nelke) in at least Col 3 lines 55-63, Col 7 lines 15-19, Col 10 lines 7-12);
Both Salisbury and Nelke are directed toward a transaction process. Nelke teaches the motivation in customer metadata characteristics to include security privacy setting in order to determine which data to encrypt according to the business boundaries that may be permissible or not permissible for the public. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify the profile use of Salisbury to include data associated with characteristic security settings of the participants as taught by Nelke since Nelke teaches the motivation in customer metadata characteristics to include security privacy setting in order to determine which data to encrypt according to the business boundaries that may be permissible or not permissible for the public.
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein identifying further includes
obtaining an identifier for the first portion from a profile setting associated with the sending party and using the identifier to obtain the first portion from the subset of transaction data. ((Salisbury) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 8-51, Col 4 lines 31-52, Col 6 lines 3-38, Col 8 lines 39-60, Col 18 lines 43-63)
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
(Original) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein assigning further includes
identifying the receiving party from a second subset of transaction data received from the receiving party or from the subset of transaction data. ((Salisbury) in at least Abstract; Col 6 lines 3-67, Col 7 lines 39-Col I lines 1-6, Col 18 lines 54-62)
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein causing further includes
simultaneously causing the first portion to be sent over one or more additional and different transmission channels to the receiving party.((Salisbury) in at least Col 11 lines 10-30, lines 60-65, Col 17 lines 42-52)
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury), in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht) in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads), in view of US Patent No. 9,253,055 B2 by Nelke as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of CA 3046235 A1 by Lam (Lam)
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), comprising:
receiving a second subset of transaction data associated with the pending transaction from the receiving party ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 4-5; Col 18 lines 43-Col 19 lines 1-65, Col 22 lines 41-49);
identifying particular portions from the subset of transaction data and the second subset of transaction data ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 4; Col 20 lines 3-19, Col 22 lines 50-Col 23 lines 1-16); and
sending the particular portions to a cloud-based [internet] transaction processing service to process the pending transaction on behalf of the sending party …((Salisbury) in at least Abstract; FIG. 8 wherein the prior art illustrates interconnect network with first/second subset computer; Col 1 lines 33-67, Col 3 lines 55-Col 4 lines 1-11, Col 6 lines 3-28, Col 13 lines 1-51).
Salisbury suggest but does not explicitly teaches:
…and the receiving party using the particular portions ((Salisbury) in at least Col 14 lines 42-58)
Although the prior art example network is routing signals between master/slave devices, the prior art teaches that the devices connected may have peer to peer connections capable of functioning as both transmitter and receiver/completer. Accordingly the prior art provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Lam teaches:
sending the particular portions to a cloud-based transaction processing service to process the pending transaction on behalf of the sending party and the receiving party using the particular portions ((Lam) in at least para 0005, para 0006, para 0013-0016, para 0072),
Both Salisbury and Lam are directed toward routing transaction data in chunks/portions. Lam teaches the motivation that transmission of transaction data include transmitting a transaction to a destination can also include a transaction response in data portions/chunks in response to the request transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify to expand the details of the transaction process of Salisbury to include the sending the receiving party using the particular portions of Lam since Lam teaches the motivation that transmission of transaction data include transmitting a transaction to a destination can also include a transaction response in data portions/chunks in response to the request transaction.
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4.
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
wherein identifying further includes receiving the first portion as a selection made by the sending party based on interface screens, auditory channels, or tactile channels presented to the sending party.
Lam teaches;
receiving the first portion as a selection made by the sending party based on interface screens, auditory channels, or tactile channels presented to the sending party ((Lam) in at least FIG. 15-16; para 0085, para 0158-0161)
Both Salisbury and Lam are directed toward routing transaction data in chunks/portions. Lam teaches the motivation receiving from a user a selection of a payment source using interface screens to receive user information. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to expand the details of the transaction process of Salisbury to include interface screens as taught by Lam since Lam teaches the motivation receiving from a user a selection of a payment source using interface screens to receive user information.
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke, Rhoads and Lam discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Original) The method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein assigning further includes
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
receiving a second selection made by the sending party that identifies the receiving party based on the interface screens, the auditory channels, or the tactile channels presented to the sending party.
Lam teaches:
receiving a second selection made by the sending party that identifies the receiving party based on the interface screens, the auditory channels, or the tactile channels presented to the sending ((Lam) in at least FIG. 6; FIG. 16-18; para 0121, para 0126, para 0161)
Both Salisbury and Lam are directed toward routing transaction data in chunks/portions. Lam teaches the motivation the display interface providing a selection made by the user that identifies the receiving party so that the price for transfer payment to the recipient can be selected. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to expand the details of the transaction process of Salisbury to include interface screens as taught by Lam since Lam teaches the motivation receiving from a user a selection of a payment source using interface screens to receive user information.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury) in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht), in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads) in view of US Patent No. 9,253,055 B2 by Nelke (Nelke) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2022/120417 A1 by Kazal et al (Kazal)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising:
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
receiving an invoice from the receiving party;
receiving an authorization from the sending party based on the invoice; and
sending the authorization to process a transaction amount for the invoice associated with the pending transaction to a cloud-based transaction processing service.
Kazal teaches:
receiving an invoice from the receiving party ((Kazal) in at least FIG. 6; para 0064-0067);
receiving an authorization from the sending party based on the invoice ((Kazal) in at least para 0067-0068); and
sending the authorization to process a transaction amount for the invoice associated with the pending transaction to a cloud-based transaction processing service ((Kazal) in at least para 0068).
Both Salisbury and Kazal are directed toward transaction processes where data chunks/packets are transmitted to perform a transaction. Kazal teaches the motivation of providing an invoice so the user can review and approve the invoice amount prior to payment authorization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify transaction process of Salisbury to include receiving an invoice and authorization process as taught by Kazal since Kazal teaches the motivation of providing an invoice so the user can review and approve the invoice amount prior to payment authorization.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury), in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht), in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads) in view of US Patent No. 9,253,055 B2 by Nelke et al. (Nelke) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,706,155 B1 by Veselov et al. (Veselov)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein determining further includes
evaluating the available networks and the network loads for the available networks when determining the transmission channel. ((Salisbury) in at least Col 14 lines 16-28, col 20 lines 51-Col 21 lines 1-11Col 29 lines 28-52)
Veselov teaches and provides supporting evidence:
evaluating the available networks and the network loads for the available networks when determining the transmission channel.((Veselov) in at least Col 9 lines 15-35 wherein the prior art teaches assessment includes information on computing resources of target computer, attached network interface information, amounts of resources allocated, real-time activity, launch events, traffic communications, aggregated performance characteristics)
Both Salisbury and Veselov teach evaluating available networks and loads. Veselov teaches the motivation that computing system located in single/multiple locations are interconnected via private/public communications and that it is needed to facilitate an increase in utilization of resources. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to include the additional teaching of Veselov to the evaluation of networks/loads of Salisbury since Veselov teaches the motivation that computing system located in single/multiple locations are interconnected via private/public communications and that it is needed to facilitate an increase in utilization of resources,
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads, Nelke and Veselov discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein evaluating further includes
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
Identifying available software and available sensors associated with a device of the receiving party when determining the transmission channel.
Veselov teaches:
Identifying available software and available sensors associated with a device of the receiving party when determining the transmission channel ((Veselov) in at least Col 8 lines 49-Col 10 lines 1-3 wherein the prior art teaches referring to target computing resources and teaches monitoring data actions for data sensor results and teaches creating assessments and rules packages which can evaluates data generated (sensor data), and where the data collection (e.g. sensor system) are authenticated (see Col 9 lines 20-26) and each sensor is authorized to access virtual computing environment (Col 9 lines 63-67).
Both Salisbury and Veselov teach evaluating available networks and loads.
Veselov teaches the motivation of obtaining software associated with destination device in order to combine program information from a target systems in order to download security programs to produce rules packages that address security risk. Veselov teaches the motivation of obtaining data collection sensors in order to apply the sensors for monitoring behavior data collections/activation of when collection is started. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to expand the evaluation of computer elements of Salisbury to include the teaching of Veselov since Veselov teaches the motivation of obtaining software associated with destination device in order to combine program information from a target systems in order to download security programs to produce rules packages that address security risk. Veselov teaches the motivation of obtaining data collection sensors in order to apply the sensors for monitoring behavior data collections/activation of when collection is started
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads, Nelke and Veselov discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10
(Original) The method of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein obtaining the available software further includes
determining a data size associated with the first portion when determining the transmission channel. ((Salisbury) in at least Col 7 lines 39-Col 8 lines 1-7)
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads, Nelke and Veselov discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein determining the data size further includes
encoding the first portion in the sequence of codes.((Salisbury) in at least Col 3 lines 25-55, Col 6 lines 38-Col 7 lines 1-4, Col 17 lines 10-20, Col 19 lines 1-23, Col 25 lines 20-53, Col 27 lines 1-14)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury), in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht), in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads) in view of US Patent No. 9,253,055 B2 by Nelke et al (Nelke) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2014/0313926 A1 by Berenberg (Berenberg)
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Nelke and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12.
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein causing further includes
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
using one of an optical channel that transmits the first portion to an optical receiver of a device associated with the receiving party, an electromagnetic modulation channel that transmits the first portion to a sensor of the device, or an air pressure wave channel in audible or hypersonic bands to transmit the first portion to an audio sensor of the device.
Berenberg teaches:
using one of an optical channel that transmits the first portion to an optical receiver of a device associated with the receiving party, an electromagnetic modulation channel that transmits the first portion to a sensor of the device, or an air pressure wave channel in audible or hypersonic bands to transmit the first portion to an audio sensor of the device. ((Berenberg) in at least para 0005-0007, para 0026, para 0034)
Both Salisbury and Berenberg are directed toward transaction processes where data is transmitting and routed in parts. Berenberg teaches the motivation that communication can be effectuated using any of a number of technologies including optical communications and RF without limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to expand the evaluation of computer elements of Salisbury to include a variety of kinds of communication channels including optical as taught by Berenberg since Berenberg teaches the motivation that communication can be effectuated using any of a number of technologies including optical communications and RF without limitation
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-18 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury), in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht), in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads), in view of WO 2015/013522 A1 by Dill et al. (Dill) and further in view of US Pub No. 2017/0228258 A1 by Shifman et al (Shifman)
In reference to Claim 14:
Salisbury teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method ((Salisbury) in at least Col 2 lines 8-43), comprising:
receiving, by … transaction processing service, a first portion of transaction data for a transaction ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 4-5; Col 13 lines 52-Col 14 lines 1-15, Col 15 lines 32-47, Col 18 lines 43-Col 19 lines 1-65, Col 22 lines 41-49, Col 30 lines 35-61);
identifying, … transaction processing service, a second portion of the transaction data that is to be directly transferred from a first party to a second party or that is to be directly transferred from the second party to the first party, … ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 4FIG. 10, ; Col 20 lines 3-19, Col 21 lines 9-21, Col 22 lines 50-Col 23 lines 1-16, Col 28 lines 17-65);
determining, … transaction processing service, one or more channels for the first party and the second party to transmit the different portion directly to one another based on available local networks, network bandwidths, device capabilities …, wherein determining further includes performing an evaluation by a channel manager that selects an optimal channel based on real-time network conditions ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 1; Abstract wherein the prior art teaches on-chip interconnect control circuitry to receive request, supports returning requested data items in a number of data transfers, with an order of data items generating chunk identifying information; Col 3 lines 38-49 wherein the prior art teaches use of internal network protocol; Col 5 lines 22-Col 6 lines 1-2 wherein the prior art teaches performing checks for enforcing ordering requirements and coherency, check determining target computer capability; Col 7 lines 15-38, Col 7 lines 39-Col 8 lines 1-39, Col 8 lines 49-Col 9 lines 1-5, Col 9 lines 33-Col 10 lines 1-32 wherein the prior art teaches the control circuitry of the interconnect reading the request indicating data items return order in different subsets, Col 11 lines 43-Col 12 lines 1-12 wherein the prior art teaches on-chip interconnect providing design specification data which identifies properties of devices, specifying data sizes, expected level of network traffic and to select parameters within the interconnect for those components (transmission channel widths, number of parallel channels, etc), Col 12 lines 41-67 wherein the prior art teaches an on-chip integrated circuit control circuitry for routing data request and responses, Col 13 lines 35-Col 14 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches the interconnect used for routing of transaction to a target completer selected based on target address and teaches the interconnect is implemented as a network chip which comprises number of routers for coupling number of requester interfaces to identify the particular route to be taken on the network chip, Col 14 lines 65-Col 15 lines 1-15, Col 15 lines 25-Col 16 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches interface controlling allocation of resource and issuing of requests based on availability of space in buffers and quality of service requirements; Col 21 lines 55-Col 22 lines 1-8, Col 27 lines 15-39, Col 28 lines 17-65); …
instructing interfaces associated with the first party and the second party to directly transmit the different portion to one another using the one or more channels ((Salisbury) in at least Col 13 lines 52-Col 14 lines 1-15, Col 15 lines 32-47, Col 28 lines 17-65, Col 30 lines 35-61).; and
using the portion to process the transaction on behalf of the first party and the second party. ((Salisbury) in at least Abstract; FIG. 8 wherein the prior art illustrates interconnect network with first/second subset computer; Col 1 lines 33-67, Col 3 lines 55-Col 4 lines 1-11, Col 6 lines 3-28, Col 13 lines 1-51).
Salisbury suggest but does not explicitly teach:
…and the second party transmit directly to one another ((Salisbury) in at least Col 14 lines 42-58)
Although the prior art example network is routing signals between master/slave devices, the prior art teaches that the devices connected may have peer to peer connections capable of functioning as both transmitter and receiver/completer. Accordingly the prior art provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
identifying, cloud-based transaction processing service, a second portion of the transaction data that is to be directly transferred from a first party to a second party or that is to be directly transferred from the second party to the first party, based on profile settings associated with the first party or the second party
and a sensitivity level associated with the second portion
wherein determining further includes:
selecting one of an optical channel, an electromagnetic modulation channel, or an air pressure wave channel based on the evaluation of the available networks, network bandwidths, or device capabilities;
encoding the first portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display;
wherein graphical components within each code of the sequence of codes are actively shifted to different positions over time to avoid at least one of glare, occlusion, or defective pixels;
wherein the cloud-based transaction processing service prevents a payee from intentionally or inadvertently requesting a payment amount that exceeds a transaction payment amount for the transaction because the transaction processing service receives an explicit payment authorization from a payer after providing the payer an invoice and a transaction amount due.
Schlicht teaches:
wherein determining further includes:
selecting one of an optical channel, an electromagnetic modulation channel or air pressure wave channel based on the evaluation of available networks, network bandwidths or device capabilities ((Schlicht) in at least para 0025, para 0072-0073, para 0174, para 0222, para 0843, para 1247, para 1249-1251, para 1257, para 1261, para 1268, para 1274, para 1276, para 1279-1280, para 1287-1288, para 1290-1292, para 1294-1295, para 1303, para 1309, para 1311, para 1314, para 1320, para 1327-1328, para 1331, para 1333-1334, para 1338, para 1344-1345, para 1364);
Both Salisbury and Schlicht are directed toward the communication over selected network based on conditions in the networks or devices. Schlicht teaches the motivation of when a communication topology with a plurality of network communication nodes for select that there is a need to provide carrier grade QoS in mobile networks thereby allowing routing of data allowing seamless integration to the fixed internet through mobile access points. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify process for selection of network communications of Salisbury to include the selection process of alternative communications nodes as taught by Schlicht since Schlicht teaches the motivation of when a communication topology with a plurality of network communication nodes for select that there is a need to provide carrier grade QoS in mobile networks thereby allowing routing of data allowing seamless integration to the fixed internet through mobile access points.
Rhoads teaches:
encoding the first portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display ((Rhoads) in at least page 10 lines 8-19, page 19 lines 24-27, page 21 lines 18-26, page 22 lines 6-9, page 27 lines 24-page 28 lines 1-3, page 30 lines 5-9, page 116 lines 1-11, page 146 lines 8-35, page 156 lines 8-14, page 168 lines 15-35, page 170 lines 6-35):
encoding the first portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display, wherein graphical components within each code of the sequence of codes are actively shifted to different positions over time to avoid at least one of glare, occlusion, or defective pixels; ((Rhoads) in at least page 10 lines 8-19, page 19 lines 24-27, page 21 lines 18-26, page 22 lines 6-9, page 27 lines 24-page 28 lines 1-3, page 30 lines 5-9, page 116 lines 1-11, page 128 lines 3-15, page 145 lines 26-31, page 146 lines 8-35, page 155 lines 4-28, page 156 lines 8-14, page 168 lines 15-35, page 170 lines 6-35)
According to KSR, common sense rationale, when all claimed elements were known in prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results the combination is obvious. The prior art included each claimed element although not necessarily in a single prior art reference with the only differences being the lack of actual combination of visual display issues outputted at a destination device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the claimed elements of the prior art by known methods and that in combination each element performs same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable.
Both Salisbury and Rhoads teach communicating data where data can be outputted at the destination device. Rhoads teaches the motivation of sending from the device raw pixel visual data so that data for viewing may be extracted and processed using Fourier-Mellin transform, filtering, affine distortion, gabor transform and other signal operations as a means to characterize image components in order to identify data imaging elements for use in image distortion in the output can be fixed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify the data communicated of Salisbury to include the sending of visual data instructions related to data extraction and processing of Rhoads since Rhoads teaches the motivation of sending from the device raw pixel visual data so that data for viewing may be extracted and processed using Fourier-Mellin transform, filtering, affine distortion, gabor transform and other signal operations as a means to characterize image components in order to identify data imaging elements for use in image distortion in the output can be fixed.
Dill teaches:
the second party transmit directly to one another …((Dill) in at least Fig. 7; para 0009, para 0017, para 0122)
identifying… a second portion of the transaction data that is to be directly transferred from a first party to a second party or that is to be directly transferred from the second party to the first party, based on profile settings associated with the first party or the second party ((Dill) in at least para 0003-0004, para 0015, para 0040, para 0046, para 0082, para 0087, para 0090-0091, para 0122).
encoding the first portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display……((Dill) in at least para 0003-0005, para 0030, para 0035-0036, para 0054, para 0071, para 0112-0113)
wherein the cloud-based transaction processing service prevents a payee from intentionally or inadvertently requesting a payment amount that exceeds a transaction payment amount for the transaction because the transaction processing service receives an explicit payment authorization from a payer after providing the payer an invoice and a transaction amount due ((Dill) in at least Abstract; para 0004-0005, para 0007, para 0009, para 0017, para 0030, para 0032, para 0035-0036, para 0040, para 0046, para 0048-0049, para 0054, para 0065, para 0072, para 0086, para 0108, para 0121-0122);
Both Salisbury and Dill are directed toward processes which determine routing of the transaction messages. Dill teaches the motivation of generating an encoded sequence of codes (QR code) which includes routing information, with assurance level information which includes fraud preventions elements including payment amount thresholds, invoice numbers and transaction amounts transmitted for the transactions for use in preventing fraud delivered in a cloud environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify the routing process to include tokenizing transaction related data as taught by Dill since Dill teaches the motivation of generating an encoded sequence of codes (QR code) which includes routing information, with assurance level information which includes fraud preventions elements including payment amount thresholds, invoice numbers and transaction amounts transmitted for the transactions for use in preventing fraud delivered in a cloud environment.
Shifman teaches:
receiving, by cloud-based transaction processing service, a first portion of transaction data for a transaction ((Shifman) in at least Abstract; para 0003, para 0005, para 0016-0018, para 0020),
determining, cloud-based transaction processing service, one or more channels for the first party and the second party to directly transmit the second portion based on available local networks, network bandwidths, device capabilities, and a sensitivity level associated with the second portion;.((Shifman) in at least para 0005, para 0016, para 0024, para 0033, para 0038-0039, para 0046, para 0078, para 0091, para 0127)
Both Salisbury and Shifman are directed toward encoding transaction data where the size of the data is a factor in determining available network/broadband. Shifman teaches the motivation applying cloud based services as known in the industry and teaches that transmission of data that system needs including available local networks, bandwidths, device capabilities and sensitivity levels are considered in order to with respect to available local networks in order to determine available computing resources for communication as well as to provide compliance for regulation and standards of security, with respect to network bandwidths in order to determine the available bandwidths and cost function for operations; with respect to device capability so as to match the processing power capabilities to the cloud processor, to determine communication capabilities ; with respect to sensitivity determine the security level/sensitivity in order to determine the risk of data being intercepted in the communication channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to the process for transmitting transaction data sets/chunks where determination of available bandwidth, device capabilities, and local networks of Salisbury to include determining security/sensitivity of Shifman since Shifman teaches the motivation of applying cloud based services as known in the industry and teaches that transmission of data that system needs including available local networks, bandwidths, device capabilities and sensitivity levels are considered in order to with respect to available local networks in order to determine available computing resources for communication as well as to provide compliance for regulation and standards of security, with respect to network bandwidths in order to determine the available bandwidths and cost function for operations; with respect to device capability so as to match the processing power capabilities to the cloud processor, to determine communication capabilities ; with respect to sensitivity determine the security level/sensitivity in order to determine the risk of data being intercepted in the communication channel.
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads, Dill and Shiftman discloses the limitations of independent claim 14. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15.
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein receiving further includes one of:
receiving a first subset of the transaction data from the first party and a second subset of the transaction data from the second party, wherein the first portion comprises the first subset of the transaction data and the second subset of the transaction data ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 4-5, FIG. 10; Col 18 lines 43-Col 19 lines 1-65, Col 22 lines 41-49, Col 27 lines 58-Col 28 lines 1-57); and
receiving the first portion from the first party or the second party ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 10; Col 27 lines 58-Col 28 lines 1-57)
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads, Dill and Shiftman discloses the limitations of independent claim 14. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein determining further includes:
receiving the available local networks to a first device associated with the first party and a second device associated with the second party from at least one of the interfaces ((Salisbury) in at least Col 14 lines 16-58, Col 20 lines 51-Col 21 lines 1-11Col 29 lines 28-52):
receiving the network bandwidths associated with the available local networks from the at least one of the interfaces ((Salisbury) in at least Col 14 lines 16-58, Col 20 lines 51-Col 21 lines 1-11Col 29 lines 28-52): and
receiving data sizes associated with the second portion from the at least one of the interfaces((Salisbury) in at least Col 7 lines 39-Col 8 lines 1-7)
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Rhoads, Dill and Shiftman discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) further comprising: …
determining the one or more channels based on the available local networks, the network bandwidths, the device capabilities associated with first device and the second device…((Salisbury) in at least Col 14 lines 16-58, Col 20 lines 51-Col 21 lines 1-11Col 29 lines 28-52); and
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
determining whether to instruct the interfaces to encode the second portion in a sequence of codes for playing and capturing by the interfaces based on the data sizes; and
the sensitivity level associated with the different portion.
Shifman teaches:
determining whether to instruct the interfaces to encode the different portion in a sequence of codes for playing and capturing by the interfaces based on the data sizes ((Shifman) in at least para 0123); and
determining the one or more channels based on the available local networks, the network bandwidths, device capabilities associated with first device and the second device ((Shifman) in at least para 0005) and the a sensitivity level associated with the different portion.((Shifman) in at least para 0024)
Both Salisbury and Shifman are directed toward encoding transaction data where the size of the data is a factor in determining available network/broadband. Shifman teaches the motivation encoding data as such encoding can lower the size of data sent to the cloud. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to the process for transmitting transaction data sets/chunks of Salisbury to include encoding data as a tool to reduce data size of Shifman since Shifman teaches the motivation encoding data as such encoding can lower the size of data sent to the cloud. Additionally, Shifman teaches the motivation of determining the security level/sensitivity in order to determine the risk of data being intercepted in the communication channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to the process for transmitting transaction data sets/chunks of Salisbury to include determining security/sensitivity of Shifman since Shifman teaches the motivation of determining the security level/sensitivity in order to determine the risk of data being intercepted in the communication channel.
Claim(s) 19 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury), in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht), in view of WO 2015/013522 A1 by Dill et al. (Dill) and further in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads)
In reference to Claim 19:
Salisbury teaches:
(Currently Amended) System comprising:
a device comprises at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ((Salisbury) in at least Col 2 lines 1-8, Col 12 lines 48-67, Col 21 lines 45-53);
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises executable instructions ((Salisbury) in at least Col 2 lines 5-8, lines 52-56, Col 11 lines 39-42);
the executable instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations ((Salisbury) in at least Col 11 lines 39-Col 12 lines 1-13, Col 31 lines 10-43 ) comprising:
identifying a portion of a subset of transaction data associated with a transaction based on a sending party to the transaction ((Salisbury) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 8-51, Col 4 lines 31-52, Col 6 lines 3-38, Col 12 lines 48-67);
assigning the portion for direct transmission to a receiving party ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 10; Col 26 lines 52-67, Col 27 lines 15-22, Col 28 lines 31-57);
determining one or more transmission channels for transmitting the portion to the receiving party based on an evaluation of available networks, network loads and data sizes associated with the portion, wherein the evaluation is performed by a channel manager configured to select an optimal channel based on real-time network conditions((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 1; Abstract wherein the prior art teaches on-chip interconnect control circuitry to receive request, supports returning requested data items in a number of data transfers, with an order of data items generating chunk identifying information; Col 5 lines 22-Col 6 lines 1-2 wherein the prior art teaches performing checks for enforcing ordering requirements and coherency, check determining target computer capability; Col 7 lines 39-Col 8 lines 1-39, Col 8 lines 49-Col 9 lines 1-5, Col 9 lines 33- Col 10 lines 1-32 wherein the prior art teaches the control circuitry of the interconnect reading the request indicating data items return order in different subsets; Col 11 lines 43-Col 12 lines 1-12 wherein the prior art teaches on-chip interconnect providing design specification data which identifies properties of devices, specifying data sizes, expected level of network traffic and to select parameters within the interconnect for those components (transmission channel widths, number of parallel channels, etc); Col 12 lines 41-67 wherein the prior art teaches an on-chip integrated circuit control circuitry for routing data request and responses, Col 13 lines 40-Col 14 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches the interconnect used for routing of transaction to a target completer selected based on target address and teaches the interconnect is implemented as a network chip which comprises number of routers for coupling number of requester interfaces to identify the particular route to be taken on the network chip ; Col 15 lines 25-Col 16 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches interface controlling allocation of resource and issuing of requests based on availability of space in buffers and quality of service requirements; Col 14 lines 65-Col 15 lines 1-45 wherein the prior art teaches topology in which routers are connected may be selected based on expected bandwidth requirements for pairs of interfaces, Col 21 lines 55-Col 22 lines 1-8, Col 27 lines 15-39); …
wherein portions of any encoded subsets of transaction data transferred between devices may be natively encrypted or non-encrypted, and wherein encoded portions of transaction data for contact data may be encrypted such that when the subset of transaction data is decoded only encrypted data is available for the contact data, and wherein a payer and a transaction processing service are capable of decrypting the contact data, but a payee is unable to decrypt the contact data (the wherein clause is optional and carries no patentable weight); and
causing the portion to be sent over one transmission channel to the receiving party or causing the portion to be sent over multiple transmission channels in duplicate to the receiving party, wherein the portion is encoded in a sequence of codes, each code in the sequence including non-overlapping or overlapping data from a preceding code in the sequence ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 8; Col 3 lines 33-55 wherein the prior art teaches data items encoded and the data items are returned in ascending address order where addresses extend from a midpoint address to the end of a sequence of addresses and then wrap around to start of the sequence of addresses, Col 6 lines 38-Col 7 lines 1-4, Col 13 lines 52-Col 14 lines 1-15, Col 15 lines 32-47, Col 17 lines 11-20, Col 19 lines 1-53, Col 25 lines 20-53, Col 27 lines 1-14, Col 30 lines 35-61),
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining further includes; selecting the optimal channel as one of an optical channel, an electromagnetic channel, or an air pressure wave channel based on the evaluation;
encoding the portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display
wherein graphical components within each code of the sequence of codes are actively shifted to different positions over time to avoid at least one of glare, occlusion, or defective pixels;
Schlicht teaches:
wherein determining further includes:
selecting one of an optical channel, an electromagnetic modulation channel or air pressure wave channel based on the evaluation of available networks, network bandwidths or device capabilities ((Schlicht) in at least para 0025, para 0072-0073, para 0174, para 0222, para 0843, para 1247, para 1249-1251, para 1257, para 1261, para 1268, para 1274, para 1276, para 1279-1280, para 1287-1288, para 1290-1292, para 1294-1295, para 1303, para 1309, para 1311, para 1314, para 1320, para 1327-1328, para 1331, para 1333-1334, para 1338, para 1344-1345, para 1364);
Both Salisbury and Schlicht are directed toward the communication over selected network based on conditions in the networks or devices. Schlicht teaches the motivation of when a communication topology with a plurality of network communication nodes for select that there is a need to provide carrier grade QoS in mobile networks thereby allowing routing of data allowing seamless integration to the fixed internet through mobile access points. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify process for selection of network communications of Salisbury to include the selection process of alternative communications nodes as taught by Schlicht since Schlicht teaches the motivation of when a communication topology with a plurality of network communication nodes for select that there is a need to provide carrier grade QoS in mobile networks thereby allowing routing of data allowing seamless integration to the fixed internet through mobile access points.
Rhoads teaches:
encoding the portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display, ((Rhoads) in at least page 10 lines 8-19, page 19 lines 24-27, page 21 lines 18-26, page 22 lines 6-9, page 27 lines 24-page 28 lines 1-3, page 30 lines 5-9, page 116 lines 1-11, page 146 lines 8-35, page 156 lines 8-14, page 168 lines 15-35, page 170 lines 6-35):
wherein graphical components within each code of the sequence of codes are actively shifted to different positions over time to avoid at least one of glare, occlusion, or defective pixels ((Rhoads) in at least page 10 lines 8-19, page 19 lines 24-27, page 21 lines 18-26, page 22 lines 6-9, page 27 lines 24-page 28 lines 1-3, page 30 lines 5-9, page 116 lines 1-11, page 128 lines 3-15, page 145 lines 26-31, page 146 lines 8-35, page 155 lines 4-28, page 156 lines 8-14, page 168 lines 15-35, page 170 lines 6-35)
According to KSR, common sense rationale, when all claimed elements were known in prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results the combination is obvious. The prior art included each claimed element although not necessarily in a single prior art reference with the only differences being the lack of actual combination of visual display issues outputted at a destination device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the claimed elements of the prior art by known methods and that in combination each element performs same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable.
Both Salisbury and Rhoads teach communicating data where data can be outputted at the destination device. Rhoads teaches the motivation of sending from the device raw pixel visual data so that data for viewing may be extracted and processed using Fourier-Mellin transform, filtering, affine distortion, gabor transform and other signal operations as a means to characterize image components in order to identify data imaging elements for use in image distortion in the output can be fixed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify the data communicated of Salisbury to include the sending of visual data instructions related to data extraction and processing of Rhoads since Rhoads teaches the motivation of sending from the device raw pixel visual data so that data for viewing may be extracted and processed using Fourier-Mellin transform, filtering, affine distortion, gabor transform and other signal operations as a means to characterize image components in order to identify data imaging elements for use in image distortion in the output can be fixed.
Dill teaches:
encoding the portion in a sequence of codes for display as a time-sequenced visual presentation on a display, …((Dill) in at least para 0054),
wherein the cloud-based transaction processing service prevents a payee from intentionally or inadvertently requesting a payment amount exceeds a transaction payment amount for the transaction because the transaction processing service receives an explicit payment authorization from a payer after providing the payer an invoice and a transaction amount due ((Dill) in at least Abstract; para 0004-0005, para 0007, para 0009, para 0017, para 0030, para 0032, para 0035-0036, para 0040, para 0046, para 0048-0049, para 0054, para 0065, para 0086, para 0108, para 0121-0122);
Both Salisbury and Dill are directed toward processes which determine routing of the transaction messages. Dill teaches the motivation of generating an encoded sequence of codes (QR code) which includes routing information, with assurance level information which includes fraud preventions elements including payment amount thresholds, invoice numbers and transaction amounts transmitted for the transactions for use in preventing fraud delivered in a cloud environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify the routing process to include tokenizing transaction related data as taught by Dill since Dill teaches the motivation of generating an encoded sequence of codes (QR code) which includes routing information, with assurance level information which includes fraud preventions elements including payment amount thresholds, invoice numbers and transaction amounts transmitted for the transactions for use in preventing fraud delivered in a cloud environment.
Claim(s) 20 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,942,878 B1 by Salisbury et al. (Salisbury), in view of US Pub No. 2010/0142447 A1 by Schlicht et al. (Schlicht)in view of WO 2010/022185 A1 by Rhoads et al. (Rhoads) in view of WO 2015/013522 A1 by Dill et al. (Dill) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of WO 2022/120417 A1 by Kazal et al (Kazal)
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of Salisbury, Schlicht, Dill and Rhoads discloses the limitations of independent claim 19. Salisbury further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20.
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 19, wherein the executable instructions when executed by the at least one processor from the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium further (see rejection of claim 19 above) cause the at least one processor to perform additional operations comprising:
receiving a second subset of data directly from the receiving party ((Salisbury) in at least FIG. 4-5; Col 18 lines 43-Col 19 lines 1-65, Col 22 lines 41-49);
Salisbury does not explicitly teach:
presenting an invoice associated with the second subset of data to the receiving party within an interface;
receiving an authorization to pay a transaction amount associated with the invoice from the sending party through the interface;
sending the authorization to a cloud-based transaction processing service that performs payment processing for the transaction on behalf of the sending party and the receiving party.
Kazal teaches:
presenting an invoice associated with the second subset of data to the receiving party within an interface ((Kazal) in at least FIG. 6; para 0064-0067);
receiving an authorization to pay a transaction amount associated with the invoice from the sending party through the interface ((Kazal) in at least para 0067-0068); and
sending the authorization to a cloud-based transaction processing service that performs payment processing for the transaction on behalf of the sending party and the receiving party ((Kazal) in at least para 0068).
Both Salisbury and Kazal are directed toward transaction processes where data chunks/packets are transmitted to perform a transaction. Kazal teaches the motivation of providing an invoice so the user can review and approve the invoice amount prior to payment authorization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention to modify transaction process of Salisbury to include receiving an invoice and authorization process as taught by Kazal since Kazal teaches the motivation of providing an invoice so the user can review and approve the invoice amount prior to payment authorization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 11,321,726 B1 by Pandhi et al, CA 2909104 A1 by Itwaru; CA 3070187 A1 by Mackenzie; AU 2014292980 A1 by Dill
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 MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights