DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 7/2/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1 and 19 are amended. Claims 13-18 are withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments
103
Argument’s argument is moot in light of a new art and new grounds of rejections due to amended claims.
With respect to Hariharan on claim 19, examiner decides to use a different reference to teach the limitation of claim 19, see below for the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Christensen (US20090037483A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US20150332197A1) in view of Varkhedi et al. (US20150193243A1) in view of Castinado et al. (US20190318333A1).
With respect to claim 1
Christensen teaches the limitation:
receiving transaction data for a transaction from at least one party to a transaction through a front-end interface associated with the at least one party ([0061 and 0063], FIG. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of Data Tracking System 100 for expanding the functionality of an existing Legacy System, by enabling Legacy System 10 to Mobilize transactions, change how Transactions are processed, and processing by Novel Data Attributes in conjunction with existing Legacy System User Interface 60..…. Also shown in FIG. 1 is Thumb Printing Software Component 80, which performs the process of Thumb Print Configuration that enables a System Administrator to view the specific Data Elements in Structured Data File 50, obtained from Legacy System 10. Once the Data Elements are readable, the System Administrator has the capability to categorize, identify and assign Attributes to the Data Elements to signify the presence of specific Operational Data 53 Presentation Data 54 and Transactional Data 55 or other Data Elements referred to herein to as Recognized Data 85 as obtained from Structured Data File 50.);
identifying at least one legacy resource from the transaction data ([0063], Once the Data Elements are readable, the System Administrator has the capability to categorize, identify and assign Attributes to the Data Elements to signify the presence of specific Operational Data 53 Presentation Data 54 and Transactional Data 55 or other Data Elements referred to herein to as Recognized Data 85 as obtained from Structured Data File 50.);
processing a customized workflow associated with the transaction that includes enhanced features and functions by integrating selective output from processing the customized workflow into existing legacy workflows of existing legacy transaction services without modifying any source code or any legacy workflows associated with the existing legacy transaction services (see [0065 and 0072-0073]);
Christensen doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Sharma teaches:
….wherein the customized workflow is dynamically altered based on customized rules associated with at least one party identifier for the at least one party (see at least [0012-0013].);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen with the teaching of Sharma as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified a system of expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen to include a method of enabling clients to customize the functionality of their field validators according to their needs, or goals as taught in Sharma for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
Christensen in view of Sharma don’t explicitly disclose, but Varkhedi teaches:
selecting certain transaction data from the transaction data based on an existing transaction service and providing the certain transaction data and an identifier for the at least one legacy resource to the existing transaction service by processing a legacy application programming interface (API) associated with the existing transaction service (see [0020-0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/ Sharma with the teaching of Varkhedi as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/ Sharma, for example expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of processing legacy data using API as taught in Varkhedi for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
Christensen in view of Sharma in view of Varkhedi don’t explicitly disclose, but Castinado teaches:
causing the existing transaction service to complete the transaction through access to the at least one legacy resource using the certain transaction data and the identifier ([0059], The real-time interaction hub 208 identifies the resource distribution ties old and new technology together to allow for real-time settlement of the resource distribution. The real-time interaction hub 208 identifies a transaction and positions a settlement process for real-time interactions that handle invoices, resource distributions, and use of links, URL, or the like for approvals. The real-time interaction hub 208 immediately lodges the entry of the resource distribution at the federal level for resource reserves and various financial institutions in real-time such that each has access to the settlement of the resource distribution in real-time …..[0063], FIG. 5 provides a process map illustrating generation of a real-time interaction hub for real-time network processing 500, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. As illustrated in block 502, the process 500 is initiated by generation of the real-time interaction hub with identified resource distribution positing schemes for one or more legacy systems within one or more institutions. In this way, the system identifies the various resource distribution posting schemes for various channels for completion of a transaction. These may include debit cards, credit cards, lines of credit, contracts, loans, savings account, checking accounts, stock transactions, or the like. Each various channel has its own unique settlement processes for completing the resource distribution and settlement.), utilizing secure private backend communications including encrypted protocols between a transaction integration service and the existing transaction service, wherein the processing of the transaction integration service is completely transparent to the existing transaction service ([0041], The financial institution server 206 may communicate with the real-time interaction hub 208 for resource distribution. While the real-time interaction hub 208 may communicate with the financial institution server 206 via a secure connection generated for secure encrypted communications between the two systems for manipulating and transferring funds to one or more different resources; see also [0063], In this way, the real-time interaction hub allows for the institutions to keep their current legacy systems, but still allows for real-time resource distribution processing. As such, the real-time interaction hub provides a unique process for real-time resource distribution without channel settlement process modification.)
Examiner’s Note (Intended Use): The portion of the limitation which recites “wherein the processing of the transaction integration service is completely transparent to the existing transaction service”, is merely a recited intended use of transaction integration service. This portion is given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for…. [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
receiving a confirmation from the existing transaction service indicating that the transaction was processed against the at least one legacy resource; and providing the confirmation to the at least one party associated with the transaction (see [0065-0066])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/ Sharma/ Varkhedi with the teaching of Castinado as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/ Sharma/ Varkhedi, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of using legacy application identifier to complete a transaction as taught in Castinado for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
With respect to claim 8
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado the limitation of claim 1. Christensen further teaches: providing the certain transaction data further includes selecting the existing transaction service from a plurality of existing transaction services based on the at least one legacy resource (see [0057-0059])
With respect to claim 9
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 8. Christensen further teaches: wherein selecting further includes identifying the certain transaction data from the transaction data based on the existing transaction service (see [0061-0062])
With respect to claim 10
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 9. Castinado further teaches: wherein selecting further includes processing a legacy application programming interface (API) associated with the existing transaction service to provide the certain transaction data and the identifier for the transaction to the existing transaction service causing the existing transaction service to process the certain transaction data against the at least one legacy resource (see [0062])
With respect to claim 12
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 1. Castinado further teaches: wherein providing the confirmation further includes sending the confirmation to a first party associated with the transaction and a second party associated with the transaction, wherein the at least one party includes the first party and the second party (see [0065-0066])
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Christensen (US20090037483A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US20150332197A1) in view of Varkhedi et al. (US20150193243A1) in view of Castinado et al. (US20190318333A1), and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US20230114586A1).
With respect to claim 19
Christensen teaches the limitation:
a server comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising server executable instructions (see [0006 and 0008]);
receiving transaction data for a transaction between a first party and a second party (see [0061, 0063, and 0064]);
processing at least one operation on the transaction that is unavailable to an existing transaction service associated with completing the transaction by processing a customized workflow that includes enhanced features and functions and integrating selective output from the customized workflow into existing legacy workflows without modifying source code of the existing transaction service (see [0065 and 0072-0073]);
updating ledgers associated with the alias resources based on details defined in the transaction data (see [0067-0068].);
Christensen doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Sharma teaches:
….wherein the customized workflow is dynamically altered based on customized rules associated with party identifiers for the first party or the second party (see at least [0012-0013]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen with the teaching of Sharma as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified a system of expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen to include a method of enabling clients to customize the functionality of their field validators according to their needs, or goals as taught in Sharma for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
Christensen in view of Sharma don’t explicitly disclose, but Varkhedi teaches:
selecting certain transaction data from the transaction data based on the existing transaction service and sending the certain transaction data and the one or more legacy resource identifiers to the existing transaction service by processing a legacy API associated with the existing transaction service (see [0020-0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/ Sharma with the teaching of Varkhedi as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/ Sharma, for example expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of processing legacy data using API as taught in Varkhedi for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
Christensen in view of Sharma in view of Varkhedi don’t explicitly disclose, but Castinado teaches:
causing the existing transaction service to complete the transaction against the legacy resources ([0059], The real-time interaction hub 208 identifies the resource distribution ties old and new technology together to allow for real-time settlement of the resource distribution. The real-time interaction hub 208 identifies a transaction and positions a settlement process for real-time interactions that handle invoices, resource distributions, and use of links, URL, or the like for approvals. The real-time interaction hub 208 immediately lodges the entry of the resource distribution at the federal level for resource reserves and various financial institutions in real-time such that each has access to the settlement of the resource distribution in real-time …..[0063], FIG. 5 provides a process map illustrating generation of a real-time interaction hub for real-time network processing 500, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. As illustrated in block 502, the process 500 is initiated by generation of the real-time interaction hub with identified resource distribution positing schemes for one or more legacy systems within one or more institutions. In this way, the system identifies the various resource distribution posting schemes for various channels for completion of a transaction. These may include debit cards, credit cards, lines of credit, contracts, loans, savings account, checking accounts, stock transactions, or the like. Each various channel has its own unique settlement processes for completing the resource distribution and settlement.), utilizing secure private backend communications including encrypted protocols between a transaction integration service and the existing transaction service, wherein the processing of the transaction integration service is completely transparent to the existing transaction service ([0041], The financial institution server 206 may communicate with the real-time interaction hub 208 for resource distribution. While the real-time interaction hub 208 may communicate with the financial institution server 206 via a secure connection generated for secure encrypted communications between the two systems for manipulating and transferring funds to one or more different resources; see also [0063], In this way, the real-time interaction hub allows for the institutions to keep their current legacy systems, but still allows for real-time resource distribution processing. As such, the real-time interaction hub provides a unique process for real-time resource distribution without channel settlement process modification.)
Examiner’s Note (Intended Use): The portion of the limitation which recites “wherein the processing of the transaction integration service is completely transparent to the existing transaction service”, is merely a recited intended use of transaction integration service. This portion is given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for…. [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/ Sharma/ Varkhedi with the teaching of Castinado as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/ Sharma/ Varkhedi, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of using legacy application identifier to complete a transaction as taught in Castinado for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
Christensen in view of Sharma in view of Varkhedi in view of Castinado don’t explicitly disclose, but Agrawal teaches:
mapping one or more alias resource identifiers for alias resources identified in the transaction data to one or more legacy resource identifiers for legacy resources by identifying aliased or virtualized resources via account identifiers provided through front- end interfaces by the first party and the second party and mapping the alias resources to the legacy resources managed by legacy banks or legacy credit unions ([0007], For every DLT wallet identification, the intermediary application may maintain a mapping to one or more client-specific conventional account identifications (when a conventional account links to a single wallet, then the identification of that conventional account maps to the wallet identification). For example, wallets may be mapped to conventional accounts in a many-to-one or a one-to-one mapping for any given asset (one wallet would only map to one conventional account for UST holdings, one wallet would only map to one cash account for USD, etc.). When the conventional account is an omnibus account mapping to multiple wallets, then the conventional account identification mapped to wallet identifications would not correspond to any account in the conventional infrastructure; see also claim 1, storing, by the DLT application, one or more wallet identifications for the one or more DLT-based client accounts and a mapping of the one or more wallet identifications to the one or more conventional accounts hosted in the conventional banking infrastructure;
wherein the DLT application is permissioned to manage cryptographic keys for the one or more DLT-based client accounts mapped against corresponding authentication keys and/or routing addresses)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi/ Castinado with the teaching of Hariharan as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi/Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of mapping legacy resource identifiers as taught in Agrawal for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
With respect to claim 20
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, Castinado, and Agrawal teaches the limitation of claim 19. Castinado further teaches: receiving a confirmation from the existing transaction service indicating that the existing transaction service completed the transaction ([0009], In some embodiments, the invention further comprises communicating with a block chain distributed network for confirmation of authorization and authentication of real-time processing for the resource distribution.)
Christensen further teaches:
sending the confirmation to both the first party and the second party based on selective portions of the transaction data (see claim 4, wherein said at least one Updated Data File includes at least one data type selected from a group consisting of said at least one Recognized Data and said at least one Novel Data.)
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Christensen (US20090037483A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US20150332197A1) in view of Varkhedi et al. (US20150193243A1) in view of Castinado et al. (US20190318333A1), and further in view of Smith et al. (US20230276234A1).
With respect to claim 4
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Smith teaches: wherein receiving the transaction data further includes receiving the transaction data from a first party and a portion of the transaction data is provided by a second party to the first party (see [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi/ Castinado with the teaching of Smith as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi/ Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of receiving transaction data from multiple parties as taught in Smith for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
With respect to claim 7
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Smith teaches: wherein identifying further includes identifying the at least one legacy resource as a first legacy resource associated with a first party to the transaction and a second legacy resource associated with a second party to the transaction (see [0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado with the teaching of Smith as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a system of identifying legacy resource(s) from multiple parties as taught in Smith for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Christensen (US20090037483A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US20150332197A1) in view of Varkhedi et al. (US20150193243A1) in view of Castinado et al. (US20190318333A1), and further in view of Pitzo et al. (US9002838B2).
With respect to claim 2
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Pitzo teaches: further comprising, archiving the transaction data, indexing the archived transaction data, and linking the transaction data to the transaction and the at least one party within the archived transaction data (see [0024].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado with the teaching of Pitzo as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of archiving/indexing/linking transaction data as taught in Smith for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying the legacy system.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Christensen (US20090037483A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US20150332197A1) in view of Varkhedi et al. (US20150193243A1) in view of Castinado et al. (US20190318333A1), and further in view of Keezhana et al. (US20230342131A1).
With respect to claim 3
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Keezhana teaches: wherein receiving the transaction data further includes receiving the transaction data as a first subset of transaction data from a first party and a second subset of the transaction data from a second party ([0038], Next, step 2109 comprises mapping first legacy functionality of the first legacy application to first replacement functionality, the first replacement functionality being executable on the migrated application, the mapping of the first legacy functionality being performed responsive to receiving first data from the first container. Next, step 2111 comprises mapping second legacy functionality of the second legacy application to second replacement functionality, the second replacement functionality being executable on the migrated application, the mapping of the second functionality being performed responsive to receiving second data from the second container.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado with Keezhana as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/ Sharma/Varkhedi/Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a system of additional subset of transaction data as taught in Keezhana for the predicated result of providing efficient method of database integration.
With respect to claim 6
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Keezhana teaches: wherein identifying further includes mapping an alias identifier identified for an alias resource from the transaction data to the identifier (see [0025-0026].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado with Keezhana as they relate to a system/method of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of mapping an alias identifier identified for an alias resource as taught in Keezhana for the predicated result of providing efficient method of database integration.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Christensen (US20090037483A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US20150332197A1) in view of Varkhedi et al. (US20150193243A1) in view of Castinado et al. (US20190318333A1), and further in view of Peddada et al. (US20190340251A1).
With respect to claim 5
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Peddada teaches: wherein receiving the transaction data further includes receiving the transaction data from the at least one party in an encrypted format ([0036], At 272, user device 205 may send a data object to database 270 for storage. The data object may first be sent to application cloud 220, which may include an encryption service 215 and a key cache 225. In some cases, encryption service 215 and key cache 225 may be components of a database server, which may be a component of a data center 120, as described with reference to FIG. 1. The data object sent to encryption service 215 may include a set of data fields (e.g., an organization identifier field, a name field, a phone number field, a price field, etc.)) and decrypting the encrypted format based on at least one party identifier associated with the at least one party ([0075], The decryption component 720 may decrypt the data using the first database-specific encryption key. In some examples, the decryption component 720 may decrypt the additional data using the first database-specific encryption key.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado with Peddada as they relate to a system of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of performing encryption/decryption on the transaction data as taught in Peddada for the predicated result of providing efficient method of database integration.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Christensen (US20090037483A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US20150332197A1) in view of Varkhedi et al. (US20150193243A1) in view of Castinado et al. (US20190318333A1), and further in view of Verheyen (US20210067328A1).
With respect to claim 11
The combination of Christensen, Sharma, Varkhedi, and Castinado teaches the limitation claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Verheyen teaches: wherein providing the confirmation further includes identifying a contact address for sending the confirmation to the at least one party from an encrypted portion of the transaction data that is decrypted using a key associated with the at least one party ([0059], The communication module 220 manages transmission and receipt of messages to/from other devices on the network. When the security subsystem 200 receives a request to send a message to another device, the communication module 220 retrieves the appropriate keys from the connection database 240, obtains the networking address of the destination device, and encrypts the message with the appropriate key for the device. These features are further discussed below. Similarly, when a message is received, the communication module 220 retrieves the private key for decrypting the message and applies the private key to decrypt the message.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado with the teaching of Verheyen as they relate to a system of integrating and expanding legacy applications into a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Christensen/Sharma/Varkhedi /Castinado, for example a method for expanding the functionality of existing legacy system in Christensen, to include a method of identifying a contact address for sending the confirmation from an encrypted portion of the transaction data as taught in Verheyen for the predicated result of expanding the functionality of legacy application without substantially modifying legacy system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 9/5/2026
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights