DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been deemed unpersuasive by the examiner. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the currently amended claims cannot be considered to be analogous to the subject matter presented in Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples because the currently amended claims are not directed towards a method of standardizing non-standardized information but rather, appears to be directed towards the transmission of information along a transmission pathway while specifically retaining its original format and unique transaction information. Thus, the claims cannot be considered to place the recited abstract idea into practical application in a similar manner as the subject matter presented in Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility examples. Applicant’s other arguments have also been deemed unpersuasive by the examiner based upon the rationale provided in the following 101 rejection:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 15-19 are directed towards a method, claims 1-7 are directed to a system/apparatus, and claim 8-14 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 15 recites the following:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a transaction manager component of a transaction processing computing system, from a plurality of different initiating channels over a network, multiple individual transaction request electronic messages containing unique transaction information having various formats, where each format is readable by only a corresponding one of a plurality of applications of a downstream transaction server component of the transaction processing computing system, and where each application is configured to process a particular type of transaction and to read corresponding electronic messages having a particular format;
temporarily storing a plurality of the transaction request electronic messages in a message queue of the transaction manager component;
generating, by a message consolidation element of the transaction manager component, a combined electronic message having a universal format that is readable by the downstream transaction server component and within which are consolidated, in their original formats and including their unique transaction information, at least some the stored transaction request electronic messages that are retrieved from the message queue;
transmitting the combined electronic message, by the transaction manager component to the transaction server component, in a first direction over a single bi-directional transmission pathway therebetween;
after receiving the combined electronic message, separating, by the transaction server component, each of the at least some of the transaction request electronic message from the combined electronic message, with each of transaction request electronic message retaining its original format and unique transaction information;
transmitting, by the transaction server component to the transaction manager component over the single bi-directional transmission pathway in a second direction opposite to the first direction, a responsive electronic message relative to one or more of the at least some of the transaction request electronic messages contained in the combined electronic message received by the transaction server component;
determining, by a router of the transaction server component, the original formats of the individual transaction request electronic messages; and
directing, by the router, the at least some of the transaction request electronic messages to corresponding application of the plurality applications of the transaction server component based on the formats of the at least some of the transaction request electronic messages.
causing the applications of the transaction server component to read the at least some of the transaction request electronic messages in their original formats and to execute the transactions requested in the at least some of the transaction request electronic messages based on the original unique transaction information retained therein.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing a mental process. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite processes which can be performed in the human mind which is grouped within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of mitigating risk in an economic transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as an “electronic messages”, “transaction server”, and “transaction server component” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “electronic messages”, “transaction server”, and “transaction server component perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of an “electronic messages”, “transaction server”, and “transaction server component amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “electronic messages”, “transaction server”, and “transaction server component perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite risk mitigation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-19 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claim 2, 6-9, 13-14,16, and 18-19 merely recites further limitations which are also directed towards the recited abstract idea.
Claims 3, 4, 10-11, 17 merely further describe the information being used to perform the recited mental process.
Claim 5, 12 recites the additional element of instructions stored on memory which does not place the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amounts to significantly more.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm 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 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 /NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699