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 .
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on January 30, 2026 for Application No. 17/895,630 filed on August 25, 2022, title: “Transaction System Transfer Techniques”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 were pending. By the 01/30/2026 Response, claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14, and 17-18 have been amended, and no claim has been cancelled or added. Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 08/25/2022 and claims no priority of any foreign application. For the purpose of examination, the date 08/25/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement listing all relevant reference(s) is not enclosed to this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-7 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions, claims 8-11, 13, and 21 recite a computer-implement method comprising a series of steps, and claims 14-20 recite a system comprising processing device and instructions. Therefore, the claims are directed to a manufacture, process, and machine which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 - the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 8, A computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a combined computing mainframe corresponding to a system conversion from a first processing network to a second processing network, the system conversion causing a conversion of a subset of a plurality of transaction mediums to the second processing network, wherein the plurality of transaction mediums is asynchronously converted to the second processing network in batches;
receiving, by the first processing network, transaction information associated with one or more transactions of a first type from a transaction medium system, the transaction information obtained by the transaction medium system from an acquirer at a transaction facilitator, wherein the one or more transactions of the first type are generated using a transaction medium of a remaining subset of the plurality of transaction mediums associated with the first processing network subsequent to initiating system the system conversion from the first processing network to the second processing network;
validating, by a validation system of the first processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type by comparing an inputted value to a stored value;
determining, by the first processing network and based on communication from a management system of the second processing network, a migration status of the transaction medium used to generate the one or more transactions of the first type, the communication from the management system identifying the subset of the plurality of transaction mediums having a positive migration status;
determining, by the first processing network and based on the transaction medium having the positive migration status, that the transaction medium associated with the one or more transactions of the first type has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network;
subsequent to determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network, transferring, by the first processing network, the transaction information of the first type to the second processing network, the second processing completing the one or more transactions of the first type such that the transaction medium remains functional subsequent to initiating the system conversion to the second processing network;
intercepting, by an enterprise data management module, the one or more transactions of the first type to determine whether to allow the one or more transactions;
based on a threshold comparison using one or more predefined limits determined based on user input, determining, by the enterprise data management module, to allow a portion of the one or more transactions within the one or more predefined limits and to deny a remaining portion of the one or more transactions exceeding the one or more predefined limits; and
based on determining to allow the portion of one or more transactions, generating, by the authorization system, a set of temporary entries corresponding to the portion of the one or more transactions, the set of temporary entries reserving a respective portion of available resources prior to batch processing of the one or more transactions.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a combined computing mainframe, a first processing network, a second processing network, a transaction medium system, an acquirer, a transaction facilitator, a validation system, an enterprise data management module (or EDM), and an authorization system). Specifically, the claim recites Commercial or Legal Interactions including managing transaction transfer operations between processing networks by determining that the transaction medium has migrated from a first processing network to a second processing network.
The claim recites essential nine steps to: generating data (generating a system conversion), receiving data (receiving transaction information), validating data (validating by comparing inputted value to stored value), determining data (determining migration status of transaction medium), determining data (determining transaction medium has migrated to second processing network), transferring data (transferring transaction information to the second processing network), intercepting data (intercepting transactions information to determine whether to allow), determining data (determining to allow portion of the transactions), and generating data (generating temporary entries corresponding to transactions) in order to manage transaction transfer operations. This is a Commercial Interaction due its business relations for managing transaction transfer operations due to merger, acquisition, or change to operation structures of companies --- see paragraph 2 of the Specification (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The newly added limitations “intercepting, by an enterprise data management module … transactions;” and “based on a threshold comparison … limits; and” are basically to determine to allow the transactions if the transactions amounts do not exceed the use-selected limit as described in paragraphs 17 and 23 of the Specification.
The other newly added limitations such as “generating …” and “the transaction information …” are additional details to further clarify the functions of the generating and receiving steps.
The previous added limitations “validating, by a validation system of the first processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type by comparing an inputted value to a stored value;” is basically to validate the personal identification number (“PIN”) as described in paragraph 48 of the Specification.
The previous added limitations “the communication from the management system identifying the subset of the plurality of transaction mediums having a positive migration status” is additional details for assuring the migration status of the transaction medium is positive.
The previous added limitations “determining, by an authorization system and based at least in part on information from the management system, whether to allow the one or more transactions;” determines whether to allow the transactions by the authorization system (cancelled via the 01/30/2026 Amendment).
The previous added limitations “based on determining to allow the portion of the one or more transactions, generating, by the authorization system, a set of temporary entries corresponding to the one or more transactions, the set of temporary entries configured to reserve a respective portion of available resources prior to batch processing of the one or more transactions;” is to generate a set of temporary entries corresponding to the transactions and to reserve a portion of available resources as described in paragraph 51 of the Specification.
The added features (new and previous) of the enterprise data management module (EDM), validation system, and authorization system (i.e., the EDM to intercept the transactions to determine whether to allow, the validation system to validate the inputted value, and the authorization system to allow the transactions and generate the temporary entries) further narrow the scope of the claim, but do not change the analysis. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis because a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. It is noted that the added features of the EDM, validation system, and authorization system are merely described in the Specification to intercept the transactions, and validate the card transactions based on the PIN entered for the card transactions (see paragraphs 17, 23, and 48) and allow the transactions and generate the temporary entries and then nothing else. Neither the claims nor the Specification provide any technical details on how these features are different from the general features. These additional features were not recited in the original claims and are not added until the recent Amendments. Thus, these additional features do not appear to be the focus of the claimed invention and are simply added to the claims in an attempt to overcome the rejection. These added features, individually or in combination with others, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim still recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of the general computer components do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While Claim 8 was addressed above, the analysis can be applied to Claim 14 where the processing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 1 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1 - the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The claims (1, 8, and 14) recite the additional elements including the first processing network, enterprise data management module (EDM), second processing network, system conversion, transaction medium system, transaction system, acquirer, transaction facilitator, and authorization system, all are recited at a high-level of generality and merely invoked to implement the abstract idea. The additional computer elements all are the general purpose computer components as described in Applicant’s Specification (see paragraphs 60-62 and Figure 7). Applicant’s Specification does not describe how the computer elements are different from the general computer components. In addition, Applicant’s Specification does not describe how the computer network or system is different or unique from others.
The added features (i.e., the EDM to determine whether to allow the transactions, the validation system to validate the inputted value, and the authorization system to allow the transactions and generate the temporary entries) further narrow the scope of the claim, but do not change the analysis. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis because a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. These additional features are only generally described in the Specification in paragraphs 48 and 50-51 and nothing else. These additional features were not recited in the original claims and are not added until the recent Amendments. These additional features do not appear to be the focus of the claimed invention and are simply added to the claims in an attempt to overcome the rejection. These features, individually or in combination with others, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional computer elements: “an EDM to intercept the transactions and to determine whether to allow the transactions based on a threshold comparison based on user input”, “a first processing network”, “subsequent to determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network, transferring, by the first processing network, the transaction information of the first type to a transaction system in the second processing network” and “by the transaction system in the second processing network.” The additional elements of an EDM, a first and second processing networks do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as these are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The limitation of “receiving by a first processing network” and “subsequent … transferring, by the first processing network” is merely indicating a field of use of technological environment and mere instructions to apply as it merely invokes the computer to perform an existing process of sending and receiving information over a network. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on the generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. merely “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements and the added elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8 and 14 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2 - the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
As discussed above, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of receiving and sending information from and to a first processing network and a second processing network amount to no more than mere instructions to apply/implement the exception using generic computer systems. The Original Specification supports that [0023] “An enterprise data management module (“EDM”) 126 can intercept the transaction information before the first transaction system 124 processes the transaction information …”, [0024] “The first processing network 122 can include a first network core 128. The first network core 128 can include computing infrastructure to maintain card-level information, such as a current balance in a bank account associated with the debit card. The first network core 128 can receive transaction information from the first transaction system 124…”, [0025] “… The second transaction system 116 can include a second network core 120. The second network core 120 can maintain transaction medium information for transaction mediums of the second type 110.” The Original Specification describes both networks at a high level of generality without specifying technical distinctions: [0044] “The first processing network can be a first banking system, and the second processing network can be a second banking system.” Figure 7 and paragraphs [0060-0063] describe the computing environment includes “a server, such as a cloud computing server … a processor 704 that can be communicatively coupled to the memory device 706 … Non-limiting examples of the processor 704 include a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a microprocessor, etc.”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on the generic computer system or merely use generic computer systems as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept or significantly more. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-21 depend on their respective claims 1, 8, 14, and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims also are directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1, 8, and 14.
Claim 2 recites additional elements “generating, by the authorization system of the second processing network and using the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type, one or more authorization posts, wherein the one or more authorization posts comprise the set of temporary entries; and receiving, by a deposit system in the second processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction including generating authorization posts by a network core and completing the authorization posts by a first deposit system (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 3 recites additional elements “determining that the transaction medium has not migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and completing, by a first transaction system in the first processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (Additional details about
the operations of the transaction including determining if the transaction has not migrated to the second processing network and completing the transaction by the first processing network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 4, 10, and 17 recite additional elements “obtaining, by the enterprise data management module in the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type; determining that a transaction amount in the transaction information of the one or more transactions of the first type exceeds a user-selected limit; and canceling a corresponding transaction of the one or more transactions of the first type that are associated with the transaction amount.”. (These claims further claims obtaining by an enterprise data management (EDM) module in the second processing network the information and implementing that steps of the abstract idea. While the original specification describes the functions the EDM performs, there is no support that the EDM is more than a generic processor. -- Additional details about the operations of the transaction including obtaining the transaction information, determining a transaction amount exceeds a user-selected limit, and cancelling the transactions associated with the transaction amount (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 5, 11, and 18 recite additional elements “obtaining, by the enterprise data management module in the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type; determining that the transaction facilitator of the remaining portion of the one or more transactions of the first type is from a list of user-blocked merchants; and canceling the remaining portion of the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (These claims further claims obtaining by an enterprise data management (EDM) in the second processing network the information and implementing that steps of the abstract idea. While the original specification describes the functions the EDM performs, there is no support that the EDM is more than a generic processor. -- Additional details about the operations of the transaction including obtaining the transaction information, determining a transaction facilitator of the transactions is from a list of user-blocked merchants, and cancelling the transactions of the first type (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 6 recites additional elements “receiving, via a network core in the first processing network, transaction medium information of one or more migrated transaction mediums from a management system in the second processing network; and processing, via the network core, the transaction medium information of the one or more migrated transaction mediums to generate one or more settlement files that the second processing network receives, the second processing network completing the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction including receiving the transaction medium information from a management system in the second processing network and processing the transaction medium information to generate the settlement files and completing the transactions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 7 recites additional elements “transmitting, by a network core in the first processing network, one or more record files to a batched process in the second processing network, wherein the one or more transactions are completed during the batched process.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction including transmitting the record files to a batch process in the second processing network which completes the transactions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 9 recites additional elements “receiving, by the second processing network, one or more transactions of a second type from the transaction medium system, the transaction information obtained by the acquirer from the one or more transactions of the second type at the transaction facilitator; and completing, by the second processing network, the one or more transactions of the second type, wherein completing the one or more transactions of the second type further comprise: generating, by a network core in the second processing network and using the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the second type, one or more authorization posts; and receiving, by a second deposit system in the second processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the second type.”. (Claim 9 further specifies in the second processing network the processing is by a network core in the second processing network. However as described above, the core is merely a generic processor and no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer -- Additional details about the operations of the transaction by the second processing network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 13 recites additional elements “generating, by the authorization system of the second processing network and using the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type, one or more authorization posts, wherein the one or more authorization posts comprise the set of temporary entries; and receiving, by a deposit system in the second processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction by the first processing network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 15 recites additional elements “receive, by the transaction medium system, different transaction information of a second type from the acquirer, the different transaction information associated with one or more different transactions of a second type from the transaction facilitator; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the different transaction information from the acquirer to the second processing network, the second processing network completing the one or more different transactions of the second type.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 16 recites additional elements “determine that the transaction medium of the first type has not migrated from the first processing network to the[[a]] second processing network; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information to another transaction system in the first processing network, the other transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 19 recites additional elements “transfer, by the first transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from the acquirer to a second transaction medium system; and transfer, by the second transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from the first transaction medium system to the second processing network, the second processing network completing the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction by the first/second transaction medium system (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 20 recites additional elements “receive, by the transaction medium system, different transaction information from the[[an]] acquirer, the different transaction information associated with one or more different transactions from a foreign transaction facilitator; generate, by the transaction medium system, one or more settlement files associated with the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the one or more settlement files to a network core in the first processing network, the network core processing the one or more settlement files to generate one or more central files to send to the second processing network for completion of the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 21 recites additional elements “determining that the transaction medium of the first type has not migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and subsequent to determining that the transaction medium of the first type has not migrated to the second processing network, transferring, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information to a first transaction system in the first processing network, the first transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type.”. (Additional details about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. These additional recited elements further narrow the scope of the abstract idea and are merely insignificant solution activities which only refine the abstract idea further and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions have been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1, 8, and 14 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-21 also are not patent eligible.
The focus of claims 1-11 and 13-21 is on a method of managing the operations of transaction transfer by determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network using a generic computing system with the programmed instructions. This is “a business solution” to “a business problem” for solving the transaction conversions problems due to a merger, an acquisition, or other suitable change to operation structures of companies, and is supported in paragraph 2 of the Specification. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, a computer network, or a system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
[0002] Transaction conversions can be inefficient and inconvenient for a transaction user. The transaction conversions can occur because of a merger, an acquisition, or other suitable change to operation structures of companies. The transaction conversions may include deactivating a first transaction system and implementing a second transaction system. Doing so can impact transaction access for users of the transaction payment systems while the transaction conversion is implemented and can increase workloads for user support centers.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
The Applicant has submitted replacement Figures 5 and 6 via the 01/30/2026 Response, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In view of the 01/30/2026 Response, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per page 16, line 15 to line 25 of page 17 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the amended independent claims are directed to a process of ensuring backwards compatibility of the transaction medium subsequent to initiating the system conversion from the first processing network to the second processing network. This reduces inefficiencies associated with system transfer.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 rejection above, the focus of the claims is on a method of managing the operations of transaction transfer by determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network using a generic computing system with the programmed instructions. This is “a business solution” to “a business problem” for solving the transaction conversions problems due to a merger, an acquisition, or other suitable change to operation structures of companies, and is substantiated in paragraph 2 of the Specification. In addition, the newly added features (such as “generating a combined …”, “intercepting …” and “based on a threshold comparison …”) have been carefully considered, analyzed, and determined that they still do not take the claims out of the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Furthermore, Applicant’s amended claims do not identify improvement related to backwards compatibility and Applicant’s Specification does not describe any improvement related to backwards compatibility either. The terms “backwards compatibility” are not indicated in the amended claims nor are described in the Specification. It should be noted that backwards compatibility is a common practice when a new version of hardware or software is designed to work with older versions. This allows users to use their existing data and physical devices with new products without disruption, like a new gaming console playing older games or a new operating system running older software. Thus, to claim backwards compatibility as an improvement does not appear to be significantly more. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Per page 17, line 26 to line 9 of page 19 of the Remarks, Applicant cites the 2019 Updated Guidelines, Enfish case, Amdocs case, and argues that the amended independent claims provide a technical improvement of reducing network traffic by reducing a number of transactions to be processed by having the EDM intercept and compare the transactions to the predefined limits. Thus, the amended independent claims clearly provide a technical improvement to a technical problem and integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, Applicant’s amended claims are not analogous to the Enfish case or the Amdocs case. Applicant’s amended claims reduce network traffic by reducing a number of transactions to be processed by having the EDM intercept and compare the transactions to the predefined limits. Applicant’s amended claims are different from the Enfish case, which is directed to a self-referential database designed to improve how a computer stores and retrieves data. Applicant’s amended claims reduce network traffic, not improving the database structure. Applicant’s amended claims are also different from the Amdocs case, which is directed to a distributed architecture consisting of network devices and gatherers and how the distributed components operated in an unconventional manner to achieve a technical solution. Applicant’s amended claims reduce network traffic, not the distributed network architecture. There is no analogy between the amended claims and the Enfish case or the Amdocs case. The only similarity between the amended claims and the Enfish case or the Amdocs case is that they all utilize computer technology.
Although Applicant has added steps “intercepting …; and based on a threshold comparison …” to reduce a number of transactions to be processed and this reduces some inefficiencies, Applicant’s claimed invention is “a business solution” to “a business problem”. Applicant’s amended claims, as a whole, are still directed to a method of ensuring that the transaction medium has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network.
Therefore, in conclusion, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
An updated prior art search did not identify any art(s), individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element and limitation of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, and 17-18 are rejected.
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 HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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 M. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights