DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/02/2023.
a. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-16 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-14 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 1 (which is representative of Claims 8, 15) shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A system comprising:
[B] a processor; and;
[C] a memory including instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
[D] receive, by a management layer, a transfer request from a channel of a plurality of channels, each channel of the plurality of channels having a respective channel-specific format such that the transfer request is configured to be in a channel-specific format that is an unstandardized file format dependent on the channel via which the transfer request is configured to be submitted;
[E] query, by the management layer and using an identifier corresponding to the channel-specific format, a mapping database to determine a first mapping configured to transform the channel-specific format of the transfer request into an internal specific format, the mapping database configured to store a respective mapping to translate each channel-specific format of the plurality of channels to the internal specific format;
[F] translate, based on the first mapping from the channel-specific format to the internal specific format, the transfer request into the internal specific format configured to be used by the management layer, the internal specific format being a standardized format to which each channel-specific format of the plurality of channels is configured to be transformed;
[G] query, by the management layer, the mapping database to determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format;
[H] translate, based on a second mapping from the internal specific format to a processing format, the transfer request into the processing format configured to be processed by a downstream processing system based on a second mapping from the internal specific format to the processing format; and
[I] send the transfer request in the processing format to the downstream processing system.
[J] subsequent to sending the transfer request in the processing format to the downstream processing system:
[K] receive, by the management layer and from the downstream processing system, communication indicating an execution of the transfer request, the communication received in a first message format corresponding to a pathway through which the transfer request was sent to the downstream processing system;
[L] transform, by the management layer, the communication to a second message format corresponding to the channel that generated the transfer request; and
[M] transmit, by the management layer, the communication in the second message format to the channel.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 8, 15) recites: receiving a request and querying using an identifier ([D]-[E]); translating data ([F], [H], [M]); querying to determine a mapping ([G]); send and receive data ([I]-[K]) and transmitting data ([M]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at processing data.
This overall combination, covers sales activities, business relationships because the claim limitation recites receiving data and transforming the data from one format to another. In addition, applicant specification on [0005], recites, “The method also involves sending the transaction request in the transaction processing format to the downstream transaction processing system. The downstream transaction processing system can be configured to execute the transaction request in response to receiving the transaction request.” One of skill in the art can conclude the claim is directed to processing transaction data. Such limitation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claims 8, 15) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “system,” “processor,” “a memory including instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to” “transfer” and “database” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of processing data. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: system ([A], [I]), processor ([B]-[C]), a memory including instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to ([C]), transfer ([D]-[L]), database ([E], [G]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 (which is representative of claims 8, 15) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[L]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of processing data could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-7 (which are representative of claims 9-14, 16-20) are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 2, (which is representative of claims 9, 16), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the transfer request is a first transfer request in a first channel-specific format from a first channel, and wherein the memory includes instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
[B] receive, by the management layer, a second transfer request from a second channel of the plurality of channels, the second transfer request being in a second channel-specific format that is different than the first channel-specific format;
[C] translate the second transfer request to the internal specific format of the management layer based on a third mapping from the second channel-specific format to the internal specific format;
[D] translate the second transfer request to the processing format of the downstream processing system based on the second mapping from the internal specific format to the processing format; and
[E] send the second transfer request in the processing format to the downstream processing system, the downstream processing system configured to execute the second transfer request in response to receiving the second transfer request.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing data. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3, (which is representative of claims 10, 17), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to:
[B] determine a sequence number for the transfer request in a plurality of transfer requests;
[C] set the sequence number for the transfer request in the processing format; and
[D] send the transfer request to the downstream processing system based on the sequence number.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing data. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4, (which is representative of claims 11, 18), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to:
[B] access the first mapping and the second mapping from the mapping database storing a set of mappings between each channel-specific format for the plurality of channels and the internal specific format and the second mapping between the internal specific format and the processing format, wherein the set of mappings includes the first mapping.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing data. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5, (which is representative of claims 12, 19), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the communication comprises a confirmation of the execution of the transfer request.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing data. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, (which is representative of claims 13, 20), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the transfer request comprises a wire transfer request and the downstream processing system comprises a wire transfer system.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing data. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, (which is representative of claim 14), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the channel-specific format a messaging queue message.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing data. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20220309478 A1), in view of Mueller (US 20200117733 A1), in further view of Matena (US 20040158549 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15. Xu discloses:
A system, comprising: a processor; and [(0129) The device processor 161 is configured to execute instructions stored in the device memory 163]
a memory including instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to: [(0130) The program code comprises executable program code modules. In other words, the device memory 163 is configured to store executable code modules configured to be executable by the device processor 161]
receive, by a management layer, a transfer request from a channel of a plurality of channels, each channel of the plurality of channels having a respective channel-specific format such that the transfer request is configured to be in a channel-specific format that is a file format dependent on the channel via which the transfer request is configured to be submitted; [see at least [0026] the method further comprises accessing an open transaction record store that comprises a combined list of a plurality of open transactions of the plurality of third party systems; dividing the received transaction request into one or more split transaction requests based on the open transaction record store; and sending each of the one or more split transaction requests to a corresponding one of the third party systems. (0083) Each third party system interface 132A-N may present standardized data access methods to external systems, such as via the use of an application programming interface (API), or other process. In some embodiments, the third party system interface 132A-N may provide a normalized API and messaging format for external systems (e.g. the transaction processing system 110 or components thereof).]
translate, based on the first mapping from the channel-specific format to the internal specific format, the transfer request to the internal specific format configured to be used by the management layer, the internal specific format being a format to which each channel-specific format of the plurality of channels is configured to be transformed; [(0140) the router order execution interface 166 may transform the transaction request from a normalized format generated by the relevant transaction router system 112A-M to the required data structure of the respective third party system 130A-N prior to sending the transaction request]
translate, based on the second mapping, the transfer request to the processing format configured to be processed by a downstream processing system based on a second mapping from the internal specific format to the processing format; [( 0140) the router order execution interface 166 may transform the transaction request from a normalized format generated by the relevant transaction router system 112A-M to the required data structure of the respective third party system 130A-N prior to sending the transaction request]
send the transfer request in the processing format to the downstream processing system. [(0009) sending a received transaction request to the optimized transaction router system, such that the optimized transaction router system can execute the transaction request via one or more of the third party systems, thereby optimizing execution of the transaction request]
Note: The applicant’s specification on [0018] recites “The transaction processing system 106 may be referred to herein as a downstream transaction processing system.” One of skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation can conclude the transaction router system is the downstream processing system.
subsequent to sending the transfer request in the processing format to the downstream processing system: translate, by the management layer, the communication to a second message format corresponding to the channel that generated the transfer request; and [see at least (0079) Each data feed 134 may be provided using various data formats, such as CSV (comma separated value), XML (extensible markup language), and so on. (0140) the router order execution interface 166 may transform the transaction request from a normalized format generated by the relevant transaction router system 112A-M to the required data structure of the respective third party system 130A-N prior to sending the transaction request.]
… the communication in the second message format … [(0217) the system data interface 162 retrieves the information of the data feeds 134A-N of the third party systems 130A-N and transform the data into a normalized format useful to the transaction optimization router 116]
Xu discloses translating data format, however, Xu does not disclose:
query, by the management layer and using an identifier corresponding to the channel-specific format, a mapping database to determine a first mapping configured to transform the channel-specific format of the transfer request into an internal specific format, the mapping database configured to store a respective mapping to translate each channel-specific format of the plurality of channels to the internal specific format;
query, by the management layer, the mapping database to determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format;
receive, by the management layer and from the downstream processing system, communication indicating an execution of the transfer request, the communication received in a first message format corresponding to a pathway through which the transfer request was sent to the downstream processing system;
transmit, by the management layer, the communication … to the channel.
Nonetheless, Mueller discloses:
query, by the management layer and using an identifier corresponding to the channel-specific format, a mapping database to determine a first mapping configured to transform the channel-specific format of the transfer request into an internal specific format, the mapping database configured to store a respective mapping to translate each channel-specific format of the plurality of channels to the internal specific format; [see at least (0031) the communication module 210 may receive, from the client device 130A, a query comprising a text string. The communication module 210 provides the query to the database module 230. (0034) The database schema 300 provides tables to store data in generic predefined formats that apply to many types of blockchain transactions as well of specific data that applies to particular message types]
query, by the management layer, the mapping database to determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format; [see at least (0031) the communication module 210 may receive, from the client device 130A, a query comprising a text string. The communication module 210 provides the query to the database module 230. (0034) The database schema 300 provides tables to store data in generic predefined formats that apply to many types of blockchain transactions as well of specific data that applies to particular message types]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Xu to include the features of Mueller. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to process transaction using the correct data format for Xu with querying the database of Mueller. Xu discloses transforming transaction request. Mueller teaches querying a database. Because both Xu as well as Mueller are implemented through field of processing transaction. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Xu as well as Mueller would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Xu/Mueller.
The combination of Xu in view of Mueller discloses processing transaction, however, the above combination of Xu, Mueller does not disclose:
receive, by the management layer and from the downstream processing system, communication indicating an execution of the transfer request, the communication received in a first message format corresponding to a pathway through which the transfer request was sent to the downstream processing system;
transmit, by the management layer, the communication … to the channel.
However, Matena discloses:
receive, by the management layer and from the downstream processing system, communication indicating an execution of the transfer request, the communication received in a first message format corresponding to a pathway through which the transfer request was sent to the downstream processing system; [(0111) The second application-server process receives the message and applies the state changes to the copy of the transactional state held in the backup execution module 1109. The second application-server process sends an acknowledgment message to the first application-server process indicating that it has received the checkpoint message 1110 (i.e., execution of transfer request). The application-server process releases the resources that have been allocated for the current transaction]
transform, by the management layer, the communication in the second message format to the channel. [(0117) the second application-server process sends the acknowledgment message after it has updated the copy of the transactional state in the backup execution module, the invention allows the acknowledgment message to be sent before updating of the transactional state.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Xu, Mueller to include the features of Matena. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to process transaction using the correct data format for Xu, Mueller using the sequence of Matena. Xu, Mueller discloses transforming transaction request. Matena teaches processing transaction. Because both Xu, Mueller as well as Matena are implemented through field of processing transaction using the transformation process of Xu, Mueller with the processing transaction of Matena to efficiently process transaction. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Xu, Mueller as well as Matena would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Xu, Mueller/Matena.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Xu further discloses:
wherein the transfer request is a first transfer request in a first channel-specific format from a first channel, and wherein the memory includes instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to: [(0130) The program code comprises executable program code modules. In other words, the device memory 163 is configured to store executable code modules configured to be executable by the device processor 161]
receive, by the management layer, a second transfer request from a second channel of the plurality of channels, the second transfer request being in a second channel-specific format that is different than the channel-specific format; [(0026) the method further comprises accessing an open transaction record store that comprises a combined list of a plurality of open transactions of the plurality of third party systems; dividing the received transaction request into one or more split transaction requests based on the open transaction record store; and sending each of the one or more split transaction requests to a corresponding one of the third party systems]
translate the second transfer request into the internal specific format of the management layer based on a third mapping from the second channel-specific format to the internal specific format; [(0140) the router order execution interface 166 may transform the transaction request from a normalized format generated by the relevant transaction router system 112A-M to the required data structure of the respective third party system 130A-N prior to sending the transaction request]
translate the second transfer request into the processing format of the downstream processing system based on the second mapping from the internal specific format to the transaction processing format; and [(0140) the router order execution interface 166 may transform the transaction request from a normalized format generated by the relevant transaction router system 112A-M to the required data structure of the respective third party system 130A-N prior to sending the transaction request]
send the second transfer request in the transaction processing format to the downstream transaction processing system, the downstream transaction processing system configured to execute the second transfer request in response to receiving the second transfer request. [(0009) sending a received transaction request to the optimized transaction router system, such that the optimized transaction router system can execute the transaction request via one or more of the third party systems, thereby optimizing execution of the transaction request]
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Xu further discloses:
wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to: [(0130) The program code comprises executable program code modules. In other words, the device memory 163 is configured to store executable code modules configured to be executable by the device processor 161]
set the sequence number for the transfer request in the processing format; and [see at least (0079) Each data feed 134 may be provided using various data formats, such as CSV (comma separated value), XML (extensible markup language). (0140) the router order execution interface 166 may transform the transaction request from a normalized format generated by the relevant transaction router system 112A-M to the required data structure of the respective third party system 130A-N prior to sending the transaction request.]
send the transfer request to the downstream processing system … [(0009) sending a received transaction request to the optimized transaction router system, such that the optimized transaction router system can execute the transaction request via one or more of the third party systems, thereby optimizing execution of the transaction request]
Matena further discloses:
determine a sequence number for the transfer request in a plurality of transfer requests; [(0140) The commit sequence number is used to ensure that the checkpoint messages are applied in the proper order to the backup execution module. In some embodiments, the commit sequence numbers are monotonically increasing integers (i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc.). The transaction releases all its locks 1307. This unblocks other transactions that requested locks conflicting with the locks held by the transaction]
based on the sequence number. [(0140) 1309 The second application server applies the received checkpoint messages in the commit sequence order. Processing the checkpoint messages in the commit sequence number order is necessary to ensuring the ACID properties]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Xu, Mueller, Matena to include the additional features of Matena. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to process transaction using the correct data format for Xu, Mueller using the sequence of Matena. Xu, Mueller discloses transforming transaction request. Matena further teaches processing transaction. Because both Xu, Mueller as well as Matena are implemented through field of processing transaction using the transformation process of Xu, Mueller with the processing transaction of Matena to efficiently process transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 19. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Matena further discloses:
wherein the communication comprises a confirmation of the execution of the transfer request. [(0111) The second application-server process receives the message and applies the state changes to the copy of the transactional state held in the backup execution module 1109. The second application-server process sends an acknowledgment message to the first application-server process indicating that it has received the checkpoint message 1110. The application-server process releases the resources that have been allocated for the current transaction]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Xu, Mueller, Matena to include the additional features of Matena. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to process transaction using the correct data format for Xu, Mueller using the sequence of Matena. Xu, Mueller discloses transforming transaction request. Matena further teaches processing transaction. Because both Xu, Mueller as well as Matena are implemented through field of processing transaction using the transformation process of Xu, Mueller with the processing transaction of Matena to efficiently process transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 7, 14. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8. Xu further discloses:
wherein the channel-specific format comprises a messaging queue message [(0079] Each data feed 134 may be provided using various data formats, such as CSV (comma separated value), XML (extensible markup language)]
Note: The above combination of Xu, Mueller, Matena does not expressly disclose wherein the channel-specific format comprises a messaging queue message. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, in view of Mueller, in further view of Matena, as applied to claims [1, 8, 15], in further view of Rybicki (US 7007003B1).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15: Xu further discloses:
wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to: [(0130) The program code comprises executable program code modules. In other words, the device memory 163 is configured to store executable code modules configured to be executable by the device processor 161]
The combination of Xu in view of Mueller, in further view of Matena discloses processing transaction, however, the above combination of Xu, Mueller, Matena does not disclose:
access the first mapping and the second mapping from the mapping database storing a set of mappings between a of each channel-specific format for the plurality of transaction channels and the internal specific format and the second mapping between the internal specific format and the processing format, wherein the set of mappings includes the first mapping.
Nonetheless, Rybicki discloses:
access the first mapping and the second mapping from the mapping database storing a set of mappings between a of each channel-specific format for the plurality of transaction channels and the internal specific format and the second mapping between the internal specific format and the processing format, wherein the set of mappings includes the first mapping. [see at least (4/11-16) The Brokers 26, 28 are also responsible for defining the formats of the application data to be processed, if these data are to be stored. The databases store the application data in the form of records. Each record must have an identifier that must be unique for that record within the application database and for the lifetime of the database. The identifier contains data that is specific to the type of data stored within a database.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Xu, Mueller, Matena to include the features of Rybicki. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to process transaction using the correct data format for Xu, Mueller, Matena using the stored data as taught by Rybicki. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses formatting transaction requests. Rybicki teaches data being stored in a database. Because both Xu, Mueller, Matena as well as Rybicki are implemented through field of processing transaction and both references addresses using the transforming of data as taught by Xu, Mueller, Matena using the data stored in the database as taught by Rybicki to efficiently process data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Xu, Mueller, Matena as well as Rybicki would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Xu, Mueller, Matena/ Rybicki.
Claims 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, in view of Mueller, in further view of Matena, as applied to claims [1, 8, 15], in further view of Hockey (US 10726491 B1).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. The combination of Xu in view of Mueller, in further view of Matena discloses processing transaction, however, the above combination of Xu, Mueller, Matena does not disclose:
wherein the transfer request comprises a wire transfer request and the downstream processing system comprises a wire transfer system. [(7/1-6) financial service system is used to initiate the financial transfer request to transfer the specified transaction amount from the source account to the destination account by providing a proprietary transfer API request to the respective financial service system]
Nonetheless, Hockey discloses:
wherein the transfer request comprises a wire transfer request and the downstream processing system comprises a wire transfer system. [(7/1-6) financial service system is used to initiate the financial transfer request to transfer the specified transaction amount from the source account to the destination account by providing a proprietary transfer API request to the respective financial service system]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Xu, Mueller, Matena to include the features of Hockey. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to process transaction using the correct data format for Xu, Mueller, Matena using the transfer technique of Hockey. Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses Hockey. Hockey teaches wire transfer system. Because both Xu, Mueller, Matena as well as Hockey are implemented through field of processing transaction and both references addresses accurately process transaction request using the transformation of data as taught Xu, Mueller, Matena with the wire transfer system of Hockey. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Xu, Mueller, Matena as well as Hockey would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Xu, Mueller, Matena/Hockey.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Applicant submits: “Patentability of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Nevertheless, in the interest of advancing prosecution, Applicant amends claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 to remove the language forming the basis of the rejection, thereby rendering the rejection moot. The remaining claims each depend from and further limit a respective independent claim. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and allowance of claims 1-20 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “Applicant reminds the Office that, for a claim to be directed to an abstract idea, the abstract idea must actually be recited in the claim. The fact that a claim might inherently, intrinsically, or theoretically involve an abstract idea on some level is not enough. For example, the MPEP states that "Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Here, the independent claims do not recite any of the abstract ideas identified in the Office Action and, therefore, cannot be directed to any of them. To the contrary, the independent claims presented herein recite, for example, dynamically adjusting a file format of a transfer request from a channel-specific format to a processing format suitable for downstream processing. Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims clearly are not directed to a business relation nor any other subcategory of the certain methods of organizing human activity outlined in the MPEP § 2106. Accordingly, the independent claims are patent eligible at Step 2A, Prong 1.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, however, the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites claim limitations of receiving, sending and transforming data. Furthermore, the applicant specification on [0005] discloses the system processes transaction data. Such limitation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). See updated rejection above. Thus rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Furthermore, the courts and the Office both agree that integration into a practical application can be evidenced by a technical improvement. For example, in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held patent eligible claims directed to a self-referential database designed to improve how computers store and retrieve data. In arriving at this decision, the Federal Circuit emphasized how the invention provided "more effective storage of data," "more flexibility," and "smaller memory requirements." The Federal Circuit therefore found the claimed invention to be patent eligible because "the focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity." In another example, in Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. V. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records was found to show an improvement in computer-functionality Along the same lines, the Office made clear in its January 2019 Guidelines ("Original Guidelines") that integration into a practical application can be evidenced by "an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." See Original Guidelines, page 19. As applied here, the independent claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because, when viewed as a whole, the independent claims improve computer functionality by resolving format incompatibility of a transfer request or communication between a downstream processing system and one or more channels using different file formats. In contrast to the alleged business relations subcategory, the independent claims are directed to processes of facilitating format processing by translating different channel-specific formats into the same internal specific format that can then be encoded into a processing format and by transforming communication from the downstream processing system into a message format suitable for a recipient channel. As described in the instant Specification, the recited operations of the independent claims can conserve computing resources by encoding a request from an initial channel-specific format to the processing format. Thus, additional software applications conventionally implemented to perform this format conversion can be forgone, thereby reducing response time or resource consumption. See, e.g., instant Specification, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]. Since the independent claims are directed to providing a technical solution to technical problems that are similar to those in Enfish and Amdocs, and the technical solution is clearly reflected in the claim, the independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Instead, any alleged abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, the independent claims are patent eligible.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.04(d) discloses that “an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (Emphasis added) “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “The Office Action relied upon Xu for the encoding operations recited in the previously presented independent claims. See Office Action, page 12. As indicated herein, the independent claims are directed to converting the transfer request from a channel-specific format to an internal specific format and then from the internal specific format to a processing format. As a simplified example, the independent claims can involve a process of converting the transfer request from an A format to a B format and then converting the transfer request from the B format to a C format. But Xu describes implementing its router order execution interface to transform a transaction request from a normalized format to a data structure required by a particular third party system prior to sending the transaction request. See Xu, paragraph [0140]. This is akin to converting Xu's transaction request from the B format of the simplified example to the A format, which is different from the recited operations of the independent claims. For example, Xu's transformation to the data structure corresponding to the particular third party system directly contradicts "translat[ing], based on the first mapping from the channel-specific format to the internal specific format, the transfer request to the internal specific format configured to be used by the management layer, the internal specific format being a format to which each channel-specific format of the plurality of channels is configured to be transformed," as recited in the amended independent claims. Xu is similarly silent to "translat[ing], based on the second mapping, the transfer request to the processing format configured to be processed by a downstream processing system," as recited in the amended independent claims. Thus, Xu fails to disclose or suggest each and every feature of the amended independent claims. Additionally, without conceding to the propriety of the rejection, Applicant amends the independent claims to advance prosecution. For example, independent claim 1 is amended to recite "query[ing], by the management layer, the mapping database to determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format." Independent claims 8 and 15 are amended to recite the same or similar features. Applicant submits that the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest each and every feature of the amended independent claims. The Office Action equated the recited mapping database to Mueller's database module. See Office Action, page 13. But Mueller's database module merely searches a database to identify records responsive to a query received from a communication module. See Mueller, paragraph [0031]. This is different from "query[ing], by the management layer, the mapping database to determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format," as recited in the amended independent claims. For example, Mueller fails to provide specifics related to the contents of its query, much less that the query is used to "determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format." The Office Action also mentioned Mueller's database schema, but this component is described as a separate embodiment unrelated to the aforementioned database module. Thus, Mueller fails to disclose or suggest "query[ing], by the management layer, the mapping database to determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format." The remaining references fail to cure the deficiencies of Xu and Mueller. For example, Matena, Rybicki, and Hockey are similarly silent to "query[ing], by the management layer, the mapping database to determine a second mapping to transform the transfer request from the internal specific format to a processing format," as recited in the amended independent claims. Thus, the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest each and every feature of the amended independent claims. In view of at least the above reasons, Applicant submits that the amended independent claims are patentable over the cited references. The remaining claims each depend from and further limit a respective independent claim. Thus, the remaining claims are also patentable at least by virtue of dependency from an allowable base claim and may be patentable for additional reasons. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amended claim language and not original set of claims. Furthermore, the combination of Xu, Mueller, Matena discloses the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, 15. Additionally, the applicant argues, “translat[ing], based on the first mapping from the channel-specific format to the internal specific format, the transfer request to the internal specific format configured to be used by the management layer, the internal specific format being a format to which each channel-specific format of the plurality of channels is configured to be transformed," as recited in the amended independent claims. Xu is similarly silent to "translat[ing], based on the second mapping, the transfer request to the processing format configured to be processed by a downstream processing system”. However, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended claim recites transforming from one format to another, but the applicant does not recite what is considered an “processing format … internal specific format”. Additionally, the cited Xu reference does disclose on [0140] “the router order execution interface 166 may transform the transaction request from a normalized format generated by the relevant transaction router system 112A-M to the required data structure of the respective third party system 130A-N prior to sending the transaction request”. One of skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation can conclude, Xu discloses transforming from one format to another. Lastly, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 remain reject at least by virtue of dependency. Thus the rejection is proper, and has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230004976 A1 GHOSH; Souma Suvra et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OBSERVABILITY, DASHBOARD, ALERTING AND PRO-ACTIVE ACTION MECHANISM - A system and method for observability, dashboard, alerting and pro-active action framework for card authorizations application are disclosed. A receiver receives a payment authorization request message having a predefined first format via a communication protocol TCPIP socket including an application process called socket manager corresponding to a card transaction. A processor operatively connected to the processor via a communication network collects application data from the message in connection with the card transaction; aggregates and stores the application data onto a dynamically allocated shared memory; reads the aggregated application data from the shared memory; stores the application data in an individual transient data queue attached to the socket manager; converts, in response to reading, the predefined first format of the payment authorization request message to a predefined second format suitable for publishing onto a desired messaging platform; and publishes the converted message onto the desired messaging platform.
US 20220350815 A1 Bauskar; Ashwini et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA FORMAT CONVERSION - A method comprising receiving, via a first application and from a client device, a request for a data format conversion of transaction data; responsive to receiving the request, transmitting, via the first application, a verification request comprising an institution identifier and an account identifier to a second application, receiving, via the first application from the second application, verification that the first account identifier is associated with a valid user account; converting, via the first application, a portion of the transaction data from a first format to a second format; transmitting, via the first application, an update request to the second application, receipt of the update request causing the second application to (1) select an established connection with an institution, and (2) initiate an update transaction with the institution based on the converted transaction data; receiving, via the first application, an indication that the update transaction was successful.
US 20220343297 A1 ABINAVAM; Srinath et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UNIFORM, CROSS PLATFORM TRANSACTIONS - A cross-platform integration component is configured for operation on a plurality of different types of partner computing devices and/or platforms. The integration component provides a same interface on each different type of computing device. The integration component comprises a plurality of implementation modules, each configured to implement reader-based transactions on a respective type of computing device and/or platform. The integration component may further comprise a platform-independent component capable of implementing non-reader-based transactions across the plurality of platforms.
US 11120006 B2 Terry; Douglas Brian et al. Ordering transaction requests in a distributed database according to an independently assigned sequence - Transaction requests may be ordered in a distributed database according to an independently assigned sequence. Different distributed system nodes, such as a transaction coordinator and a storage node may independently assign sequence numbers to requests to access a distributed database. A storage node may receive the request from a transaction coordinator with an assigned sequence number and another request to which the storage node may assign a sequence number. The storage node can then order performance of the requests based on the sequence numbers.
US 20190392061 A1 CERTAIN T A et al. System for ordering transaction requests in distributed database in a company or a public sector organization, includes processor that receives a request to perform transaction at a distributed database by a transaction coordinator node - NOVELTY - The system includes a memory to store the program instructions, and is performed by a processor to receive a request to perform a transaction at a distributed database by a transaction coordinator node (320). The first sequence number is assigned to order the performance of the transaction at a storage node (330a to 330n) of the distributed database by the transaction coordinator node. A non-transactional request is received to access the distributed database by the storage node. A second sequence number is assigned by the storage node to order the performance of the non-transactional request at the storage node, while performing the transaction request and the non-transactional request at the storage node according to an order determined based on the assigned sequence numbers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights