DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 01/23/2026.
Claims 1-36 are pending and are examined hereon.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 31 are objected to because of the claims recite “while list.” The claims language contain typo in which the claims should recite “white list.” Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
With respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant is of the opinion that the rejections against claims 1 and 20 and their dependent claims should be withdrawn since in claims 1 and 20, the subscriber for assigning the target resolution type to be selectively related to one of only a customer, only a merchant, and both the customer and the merchant for a transaction, is a computer device which is known to have its own memory for storing or retrieving data to be processed in accordance with a format of a data structure, such as the target resolution type for assignment. Despite no memory recited in claims 1 and 20, it is common sense to people ordinarily skilled in the art that no exception to the rule, every computer device should be equipped with memory from RAM for active tasks to long-term storage (SSD/HDD) for its data storage and even small devices like microcontrollers have onboard memory. At the absence of memory, a computer cannot load its operating system or function at all. In other words, having memory in the subscriber for at least containing the data structure of the target resolution type to be processed is a fact beyond dispute and is thus implicitly disclosed already. As a result, the dissimilarity asserted by Examiner against the cited case turns out to be half-baked without taking the common knowledge as a whole in computer engineering into account. On the other hand, in last RCE the features including the assignment of the target resolution type, the fault-tolerant resolving scheme and the hardware architecture containing the subscriber and the one-to-many resolving platform were proposed by Applicant as the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner responded to this with the opinion that the additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. To cope with the Examiner's opinion, the white list is taken to be added as improvement to the functioning of a computer like the local resolving peer. When a target fails to be resolved in the first stage by the local resolving peer, the white list which includes a part of the multiple resolving peers capable of resolving the target in the second stage serves as a shortcut for the local resolving peer to quickly identify those who can resolve the target in the next stage and to only transmit the target and the target resolution type thereto directly without aimlessly broadcasting to all other resolving peers for target resolution, thereby significantly enhancing the target resolution efficiency. Technically, being a specific embodiment for improving the target resolution efficiency, the white list can at most be considered as one of the technical features implementing the exception but not to monopolize it at all. In that scenario, the enhanced target resolution efficiency here in turn can be considered as the improvement beneficial to all the resolving peers of the overall target resolving platform.
Examiner fully considers Applicant’s position and considers the argument to be unclear because the argument relies on a supposed claim language that is not part of the instant claims. That is, Applicant presents argument related to the “format of a data structure,” related to data stored in the subscriber’s computer device memory which is not the same as “a subscriber device assigning a target resolution type…” which makes the argument unclear. Further, the argument relies on “the fault-tolerant resolving scheme and the hardware architecture containing the subscriber and the one-to-many resolving platform,” as the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception which is not part of the claimed invention making the argument unclear.
However, the claims continue to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
With respect to the argument that the white list providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer like the local resolving peer is not found to be convincing, because the white list is only being used to provide information for distributing the target resolution type, and the target to the multiple remote resolving peers when the target is not resolvable. That is, the white list only contains information indicating where to transmit data and the white list itself do not affect how the local resolving peer nor the remote resolving peers function themselves hence do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of processing transaction data for resolving (matching/associating) with mobile and/or merchant identifiers. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim continue to be not patent eligible.
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 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-19, 24 and 34 are directed to a “Method” (Process). Claims 20-23, 25-33 and 35-36 are directed to “A system” (Machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of processing transaction data for resolving (matching/associating) with mobile and/or merchant identifiers, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include commercial interactions and managing relationships (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to processing transaction data for resolving (matching/associating) with mobile and/or merchant identifiers because the claims involve receiving a target, and a target resolution type from the subscriber device, determining if the target is resolvable to at least one identifier corresponding to the target resolution type, transmitting the target resolution type, and the target to the multiple remote resolving peers when the target is not resolvable, and determining if the target is resolvable based on a count of at least one resolvable result from the multiple remote resolving peers which is a commercial interaction between customers and customers service providers based on relationships between customers and customers service providers identifiers including transaction data/type. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 1, as similarly as 20,
A system for resolving a target, comprising:
a cross-peer transaction network;
a subscriber device assigning a target resolution type to be selectively related to one of only a customer, only a merchant, and both the customer and the merchant for a transaction; and
multiple resolving peers communicatively connected to the cross-peer transaction network with a part of the multiple resolving peers including:
multiple remote resolving peers being capable of resolving the target and included in a white list; and
a local resolving peer being in direct communication with the subscriber device and the multiple remote resolving peers,
receiving a target, and a target resolution type from the subscriber device,
determining if the target is resolvable to at least one identifier corresponding to the target resolution type and when receiving the white list suggested by the local resolving peer, determining that the target is not resolvable,
transmitting the target resolution type, and the target to the multiple remote resolving peers when the target is not resolvable, and
determining if the target is resolvable based on a count of at least one resolvable result from the multiple remote resolving peers,
wherein when the count is more than one, the target is determined to be not resolvable.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of processing transaction data for resolving (matching/associating) with mobile and/or merchant identifiers. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-19 and 21-36 further describe the abstract idea of processing transaction data for resolving (matching/associating) with mobile and/or merchant identifiers. That is, although claims 2, 5, 7-9, 11-19, 22 and 24-36 recites functional steps performed by subscriber device, multiple resolving peers resolving peers further comprises a target issuing peer, local resolving peer and remote resolving peers, respectively, but those additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PGPub Linlor (US 2005/0199709 A1) discloses:
a method and a system for resolving a target, comprising:
receiving (“information identifying the mobile device”) from the subscriber device, (Par. [0022] “For example, when a product request is received by the payment resolution module 110, information identifying the mobile device may be sent to a user resolution module (not shown).”)
determining if the (Par. [0022] “the payment resolution module 110 identifies the user of the hand-held device 120 using information that is unique to the hand-held device 120, such as caller ID information or a device identifier specific to the hand-held device 120. This information may be stored locally at the payment resolution module 110, or may be accessed on a remote computer system.”)
transmitting the target resolution type, (Par. [0023] “In step 2 of FIG. 1, the payment resolution module 110 transmits information identifying the user, along with the product information,”)
determining if the (Par. [0073] “Accordingly, in one embodiment the payment resolution module 910 acquires an identity of a specific user along with a payment requested by the specific user. Once a user is identified, the payment resolution module 910 may then identify a source account associated with the user… In one embodiment, the user resolution module returns both a user identification and a corresponding payment source. In another embodiment, user resolution module returns only a payment source and a user identification is not specifically resolved.”)
PGPub Studnitzer (US 2017/0098216 A1) discloses:
wherein the subscriber is a computer device assigning the target resolution type to be selectively related to at least one of a customer and a merchant for a transaction. (Fig. 2; Pars. [0002] “These conventional networks resolve transactions using unified data transactions that combine the customer information and the merchant information into a single message that contains sufficient information for the payment processor to complete the transaction.” [0046]).
PGPub Ziv et al (US 2017/0013450 A1) discloses: transmitting the target resolution type, (Pars. [0053] “If the observer can resolve the eID alone, the observer resolves the eID to determine information about the broadcaster (block 56). If the observer cannot resolve the eID alone, the observer sends this message to an authorized resolver for further processing (block 58).” [0054])
PGPub KO YUN-SOK (KR 930000584 B1) discloses:
a local resolving peer receiving the target (“personal code”) and a target resolution type (“subscriber's mobile ID”) from a subscriber in direct communication with the local resolving peer, (Page 3, Par. 1 “checks whether the subscriber's mobile ID, personal code, and telephone number have been received from the first exchange, and stores them in a temporary buffer when they are received.”)
wherein the subscriber is a computer device assigning the target resolution type to be selectively related to one of only a customer, only a merchant, and both the customer and the merchant for a transaction; (Page 2, Par. 13 “the subscriber who is currently subscribed to the first exchange enters the subscriber's mobile ID, personal code and telephone number.”)
(b) the local resolving peer determining if the target is resolvable to at least one identifier corresponding to the target resolution type (Page 3, Par. 1 “the second exchange checks whether the corresponding subscriber has entered the key and if there is a key input, checks whether the subscriber's mobile ID, personal code, and telephone number have been received from the first exchange, and stores them in a temporary buffer when they are received.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights