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 .
In response to the restriction requirement filed on 10/01/25, the applicant has elected the invention of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-9 without traverse. This restriction requirement is now final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
1. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
3. The examiner contends that, under the judicial exceptions enumerated in the MPEP § 2106, to determine the patent-eligibility of an application, a two- part analysis has to be conducted.
Part 1: it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
Part 2A: Prong 1: (1) Determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or one of the judicial exceptions. Examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice Corp. include:
1. Certain method of organizing human activity such as Fundamental Economic Practices, Commercial and Legal Interactions, or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
2. A mental process.
3. Mathematical relationships/formulas.
Part 2A: Prong 2: determine if the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Part 2B: determine if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Analysis
4. Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is found that the claim indeed recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process - one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A (Prong 1), using claim 1 as the representative claim, it is determined that apart from generic hardware and extra-solution activity discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 below, the claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. For instance, the claim language “processing an electronic transaction using a schema comprising: a first unique entity object identifier identifying a sender of an electronic message related to the electronic transaction;
a second unique entity object identifier identifying a receiver of the electronic message; a first transaction object identifier identifying the transaction, the first transaction object identifier being located at a top level of a hierarchy of a plurality of transaction object identifiers; and transaction information of the transaction, the transaction information comprising the first
unique entity object identifier, the second unique entity object identifier, and the unique
transaction object identifier” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (Prong 2), the examiner contends that the claim recites an additional element beyond the recited abstract idea, above: “at least one processor.” This additional element, considered in the context of claim 1 as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it simply recites a system for processing data. The recited processor, with its already available basic functions, is merely being applied to the abstract idea and being used as a tool for executing the claimed process. Thus, it is determined that claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, it is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 1 is the generically recited “processor.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that any of these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner. The specification substantiates this, for instance at paras 0050-0052. Thus, applying an exception using a generic computer processor cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examiner contends that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the independent claims otherwise styled as a computer-readable medium encoded to perform specific tasks, machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Furthermore, the limitations in the dependent claims are thus subject to the same analysis as in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as in claim 1 above. More specifically, dependent claims 2-9 do not recite additional elements but merely further narrow the scope of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bestfleisch (US 2013/0031203 A1).
Re claim 1. Bestfleisch teaches at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions embodied therein that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to process an electronic transaction using a schema (Figure 3A, [0006], [0075]), the schema comprising: a first unique entity object identifier identifying a sender of an electronic message related to the electronic transaction ([0122], [0132] “A request 614 is a binding requisition or requirement from a sender 602 to a recipient 604... Examples of a request 614 are a parking ticket, a purchase order, an order for delivery and a job application.” [0179] “SenderID”); a second unique entity object identifier identifying a receiver of the electronic message ([0122], [0179] “RecipientID”); a first transaction object identifier identifying the transaction ([0227]-[0230] and message ID), the first transaction object identifier being located at a top level of a hierarchy of a plurality of transaction object identifiers (Fig 26A); and transaction information of the transaction, the transaction information comprising the first unique entity object identifier, the second unique entity object identifier, and the unique transaction object identifier (Fig 26A, business document 2604, see also [0225]-[0231]).
Re claim 5. Bestfleisch further teaches wherein the first unique entity object identifier identifies one of an individual, a legal entity, and a corporate entity ([0154], [0179]).
Re claim 6. Bestfleisch further teaches wherein the second unique entity object identifier identifies one of an individual, a legal entity, and a corporate entity ([0154], [0179]).
Re claim 7. Bestfleisch further teaches a second transaction object identifier identifying the transaction, the second transaction object identifier being located at the level immediately below the first transaction object identifier in the hierarchy of the plurality of transaction object identifiers (Fig 26A, [0182]).
Re claim 8. Bestfleisch further teaches a third transaction object identifier associated with the transaction, the third transaction object identifier being located at the level immediately below the second transaction object identifier in the hierarchy of the plurality of transaction object identifiers (Fig 26A, [0182]).
Re claim 9. Bestfleisch further teaches wherein the top level of the hierarchy defines a category of transaction object identifiers ([0180]).
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, 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bestfleisch (US 2013/0031203 A1) in view of Bester (WO 2018/220541 A1).
Re claim 2. While Bestfleisch teaches a schema with the first unique entity object identifier identifying a sender, Bestfleisch does not teach a digital signature. However Bester teaches a computer-implemented method associated with an entity comprising receiving and sending contract data elements using a schema, the schema further comprising a digital signature associated with the first unique entity object identifier (pg 29, lines 5-12 “The contract data elements receiving component (416) may be configured to receive the contract data elements or a representation thereof from another entity together with digital signatures of entities party to the contract (at least including an originating entity signature associated with the entity from whom the contract data elements are received).”). 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 teachings of Bester with the teachings of Bestfleisch because as Bester teaches the digital signatures in a contract messages to demonstrate agreement, which would improve the messaging system of Bestfleisch which communicates business documents including agreements (i.e. purchase orders).
Re claim 3. Bestfleisch further teaches wherein the transaction information includes one or more of a reference number for the electronic transaction, a payment amount, a timestamp, an itemization of goods or services exchanged in the electronic transaction, a revision number for a document being revised in the electronic transaction, a sender business name, and a receiver business name ([0179], [0182]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bestfleisch in view of Bester and further in view of Dick (US 2002/0174340 A1).
Re claim 4. Bestfleisch teaches the schema includes a time associated with the transaction, but does not specify the time is a time stamp token associated with the transaction. However, Dick teaches a method that relates to document security and authentication of electronic messages, teaching a schema that comprises a time stamp token associated with a transaction ([0041], [0090]). 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 teachings of Dick with the teachings of Bestfleisch in view of Bester because as Dick suggests including a timestamp token to increase security of the message in the XML format to detect any changes between versions of respective messages ([0002], [0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/OJO O OYEBISI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695