DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category: Yes, the claim 1 is a computer-implemented method that recites a series of steps and therefore falls in the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes, the claim recites: “determining a count value of the number of transactions of a class of transactions existing within the processing environment; determining the count value meets a first predetermined requirement; and setting the value of an availability indicator for the class based on the determining the count value meets the first predetermined requirement.” As drafted, the claim as a whole recites a method including steps that could be performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computing components. The human mind can easily judging/evaluating/determining/counting a count value of the number of transactions of a class of transactions existing within the processing environment, judging/evaluating/determining/identifying the count value meets a first predetermined requirement, and setting/mark the value of an availability indicator for the class based on the determining the count value meets the first predetermined requirement. Therefore, but for the recitation of generic computing components, these steps may be a Mental Processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Therefore, yes, the claims do recite judicial exceptions.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Integrated into a practical Application: No, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional limitations that “A computer-implemented method for determining availability of a transaction in a processing environment” is an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept: No. The additional element A computer-implemented method for determining availability of a transaction in a processing environment” is an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))). These additional elements and combination of the elements does not amount to significant more than the exception itself or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. Claim 13 further recites “one or more processors; and a memory comprising code stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, determines availability of a transaction in a processing environment, the transaction belonging to a class of transactions” (i.e., “One or more processors; and a memory comprising code stored thereon that, when executed by the processor” are directed to generic computing components/functions (MPEP § 2106.05(b). “determines availability of a transaction” which is being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind). Claim 20 further recites “one or more processors; and a memory comprising code stored thereon that, when executed, performs a method for handling an inbound request for a transaction in a processing environment, the method comprising: receiving a request for a transaction in the processing environment, the transaction belonging to a class of transactions” and “determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class” (“one or more processors; and a memory comprising code stored thereon that, when executed, performs a method for handling an inbound request for a transaction in a processing environment” which is directed to generic computing components/functions (MPEP § 2106.05(b) merely applying the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). In addition, “receiving a request for a transaction in the processing environment, the transaction belonging to a class of transactions” which is insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Courts have identified “receiving and transmitting data, storing and retrieving information”, et cetera as well understood, routine, conventional and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). And these can be reached on one of court case (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) see MPEP § 2106.05(d) II). Accordingly, a conclusion that “receiving” is well understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2. Further, “determining” which is being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 2, the claim elaborates that wherein the count value comprises a smoothed count of the number of transactions of the class existing within the processing environment (these limitation are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 3, the claim elaborates that wherein determining a count value of the number of transactions of the class existing within the processing environment comprises: calculating the smoothed number of active and queued transactions of the class present within the processing environment. (“calculating” which is being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 4, the claim elaborates that wherein the first predetermined requirement requires the count value to be greater than a first threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is greater than a maximum number of active transactions of the class permitted within the processing environment (these limitation are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 5, the claim elaborates that wherein setting the value of the availability indicator for the class comprises: responsive to determining that the count value meets the first predetermined requirement, setting the value of the availability indicator to indicate that a transaction of the class is not permitted within the processing environment (“responsive to determining that the count value meets the first predetermined requirement, setting the value of the availability indicator…” as being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 6, the claim elaborates that determining the count value meets a second predetermined requirement; and setting the value of an availability indicator for the class based on whether or not the count value is determined to meet the second predetermined requirement (“determining” and “setting” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 7, the claim elaborates that wherein the second predetermined requirement requires the count value to be less than a second threshold value, the second threshold value being less than the first threshold value; and wherein the second threshold value is less than a maximum number of active transactions of the class permitted within the processing environment (these limitation are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 8, the claim elaborates that wherein setting the value of the availability indicator for the class comprises: responsive to determining that the count value meets the second predetermined requirement, conditioned upon the value of the availability indicator indicates that a transaction of the class is not permitted within the processing environment, setting the value of the availability indicator to indicate that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment (“responsive to determining that the count value meets the second predetermined requirement… setting the value…” as being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 9, the claim elaborates that wherein the processing environment comprises a transaction processing environment (this limitation is an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
With respect to the dependent claim 10, the claim elaborates that receiving an inbound request for a transaction in the processing environment, the transaction belonging to the class of transactions, wherein the determining a count value of the number of transactions is in response to the receiving; and determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class (“receiving” which is insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Courts have identified “receiving and transmitting data, storing and retrieving information”, et cetera as well understood, routine, conventional and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). “determining a handling action” as being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 11, the claim elaborates that wherein determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class comprises: conditioned upon the value of the availability indicator for the class indicating that a transaction of the class is not permitted to be executed or queued for execution within the processing environment, determining that the handling action is to reject the received request (these limitations are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 12, the claim elaborates that wherein determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class comprises: conditioned upon the value of the availability indicator for the class indicating that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment, determining that the handling action is to execute or queue the received request (“conditioned upon the value of the availability indicator for the class indicating that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment, determining that the handling action is to execute or queue the received request” as being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
Dependent claims 14-19 recite the same features as applied to claims 4-8 and 3 respectively above, therefore they are also rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 13 and 20 (line# refers to claim 1):
Line 3, “the number of transactions” lacks antecedence basis.
Line 6, “the value of an availability indicator” lacks antecedence basis.
As per claims 2-3 and 19 (line# refers to claim 2):
Line 2, “a smoothed count” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. (also applies to claims 3 and 19)
As per claims 7 and 17 (line# refers to claim 7):
Line 3 “the first threshold value” lacks antecedence basis.
As per claim 8 and 18 (line# refers to claim 8):
In line 6, it recites the phrase “a transaction of the class”. However, prior to this phrase in claim 8, at lines 4-5, it recites “a transaction of the class”. Thus, it is unclear whether the second recitation of “a transaction of the class” is the same or different from the first recitation of “a transaction of the class”. If they are the same, the or said should be used. For examining purpose, examiner will interpret it as the same one.
As per claims 2-12 and 14-19:
They are system claims that depend from rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies thereof and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
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 1-5, 9-11, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCE et al. (US Pub. 2018/0189097 A1) in view of Senn (US Pub. 2020/0202354 A1).
BRUCE was cited in the IDS filed on 09/07/2023
As per claim 1, BRUCE teaches the invention substantially as claimed including A computer-implemented method for determining availability of a transaction in a processing environment, the method comprising (BRUCE, Fig. 1; [0005] lines 1-3, Outstanding transaction regulation can involve regulating transactions by allowing the initiator device to issue transactions subject to a limit on a maximum number of outstanding transactions; [0161] lines 4-6, determines the number of outstanding transactions, to allow or disallow requests by a modifier):
determining a count value of the number of transactions of a class of transactions existing within the processing environment (BRUCE, Fig. 13, 1300 request, 1365 OT Counter; Fig. 18, 1810, 1820 Trans class, 1830 No. of Ots (as a count value of the number of transactions of a class of transactions); [0138] lines 1-2, The OT counter 1110 acts to count outgoing requests via an input 1180; [0161] lines 4-6, determines the number of outstanding transactions, to allow or disallow requests by a modifier);
determining the count value meets a first predetermined requirement (BRUCE, Fig. 18, 1810, 1820 Trans class, 1830 No. of Ots, 1840 OT limit; Fig. 12, 1200 request, 1205 below OT limit and 1210 (as whole as including meets a first predetermined requirement, i.e., Below OT Max, ); [0157] lines 1-3, Returning to the step 1205, if the current number of outstanding transactions is below OT limit); and
setting the value of indicator based on the determining the count value meets the first predetermined requirement (BRUCE, Fig. 12, 1250 and 1220; Fig. 11, 1160 request mark; [0140] lines 1-8, The “request mark” 1160 can indicate to the downstream device either that the OT controller 1100 is requesting permission to increase the number of OTs (which, for example, the OT controller might indicate when the number of OTs is at or above the OT limit), and/or that the OT controller 1100 is offering to reduce its number of OTs (which, for example, the OT controller might indicate when the number of OTs is below OT limit but at least as high as OT min); [0157] lines 7-9, At a step 1250, the OT controller prepares a request marked (1160) to indicate that the limit is reduceable).
BRUCE fails to specifically teach when setting the value of indicator, it is setting the value of an availability indicator for the class based on the determining the count value meets the first predetermined requirement.
However, Senn teaches setting the value of an availability indicator for the class based on the determining the count value meets the first predetermined requirement (Senn, [0005] lines 28-32, determining, based on the timestamps of the first plurality of micro-transactions, that a quantity of the micro-transactions that occur within a predetermined amount of time exceeds the threshold transaction frequency; [0061] lines 1-10, the transaction approval policy may comprise a threshold transaction frequency. The threshold transaction frequency may represent a quantity of transactions of a certain type within a specified time period that, when exceeded, may cause financial services device 110 to flag or deny one or more transactions. For example, in some embodiments, when a threshold transaction frequency for a particular type of transaction has been exceeded, financial services device 110 may flag or deny any future transactions of a similar type (as setting the value of an availability indicator (i.e., flag) for the class based on the determining the count value meets the first predetermined requirement)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of BRUCE with Senn because Senn’s teaching of flag and deny any future transactions of similar type when the number of transactions has been exceeded the threshold would have provided BRUCE’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to preventing pontifical fraud associated with transactions/account which improving the system security and performance (see Senn, [0018] “ allow fine-tuned control over the types and amounts of transactions and increase account-holder security and comfort when multiple users or devices attempt purchases using the account”).
As per claim 2, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 1 above. BRUCE further teaches wherein the count value comprises a smoothed count of the number of transactions of the class existing within the processing environment (BRUCE, Fig. 13, 1300 request, 1365 OT Counter; Fig. 18, 1810, 1820 Trans class, 1830 No. of Ots (as a smoothed count of the number of transactions of a class of transactions, i.e., number of Ots (as integer value/soothed count); [0138] lines 1-2, The OT counter 1110 acts to count outgoing requests via an input 1180; [0161] lines 4-6, determines the number of outstanding transactions, to allow or disallow requests by a modifier).
As per claim 3, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 2 above. BRUCE further teaches wherein determining a count value of the number of transactions of the class existing within the processing environment comprises: calculating the smoothed number of active and queued transactions of the class present within the processing environment (BRUCE, Fig. 13, 1300 request, 1365 OT Counter; Fig. 18, 1810, 1820 Trans class, 1830 No. of Ots (as a smoothed count of the number of transactions of a class of transactions, i.e., number of Ots (as integer value/soothed count); [0138] lines 1-2, The OT counter 1110 acts to count outgoing requests via an input 1180; [0161] lines 4-6, determines the number of outstanding transactions, to allow or disallow requests by a modifier; [0111] FIG. 2 schematically illustrates a transaction issuing device 200 having a transaction queue 210 and outstanding transaction regulation (OTR) circuitry 220; [0112] In FIG. 3, an initiator device 300 issues transactions to an interconnect (part of which is shown as 310) having a queue 320 and OTR circuitry 330 associated with that initiator device 300. When the queue 320 contains a number of outstanding transactions equal to the outstanding transaction limit).
As per claim 4, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 1 above. BRUCE further teaches wherein the first predetermined requirement requires the count value to be greater than a first threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is greater than a maximum number of active transactions of the class permitted within the processing environment (BRUCE, Fig. 18, 1810, 1820 Trans class, 1830 No. of Ots, 1840 OT limit; Fig. 12, 1200 request, 1205 below OT limit and 1210 Below OT Max (as whole as including meets a first predetermined requirement, OT Max (as first threshold); [0155] If the answer is no then control passes to a step 1210 at which the OT controller detects whether the current number of outstanding transactions is below the higher threshold OT max. [Examiner noted: the first threshold value (i.e., OT Max) is greater than a maximum number of active transactions of the class permitted within the processing environment (i.e., the transaction will be blocked if that first threshold value is passed, so this first threshold value (i.e., OT Max) is greater than a maximum number of active transactions of the class permitted (i.e., the number of the transactions to be allowed must be at least equal to or less than the maximum number of active transactions)].
As per claim 5, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Senn further teaches wherein setting the value of the availability indicator for the class comprises: responsive to determining that the count value meets the first predetermined requirement, setting the value of the availability indicator to indicate that a transaction of the class is not permitted within the processing environment (Senn, [0005] lines 28-32, determining, based on the timestamps of the first plurality of micro-transactions, that a quantity of the micro-transactions that occur within a predetermined amount of time exceeds the threshold transaction frequency; [0061] lines 1-10, the transaction approval policy may comprise a threshold transaction frequency. The threshold transaction frequency may represent a quantity of transactions of a certain type within a specified time period that, when exceeded, may cause financial services device 110 to flag or deny one or more transactions. For example, in some embodiments, when a threshold transaction frequency for a particular type of transaction has been exceeded, financial services device 110 may flag or deny any future transactions of a similar type (as setting the value of an availability indicator (i.e., flag) for the class that is not permitted within the processing environment )).
As per claim 9, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 1 above. BRUCE further teaches wherein the processing environment comprises a transaction processing environment (BRUCE, Fig. 1; Abstract, Data processing apparatus comprises one or more transaction issuing devices configured to issue data processing transactions to be handled by a downstream device and to receive a completion acknowledgement in respect of each completed transaction).
As per claim 10, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 1 above. BRUCE further teaches receiving an inbound request for a transaction in the processing environment, the transaction belonging to the class of transactions, wherein the determining a count value of the number of transactions is in response to the receiving (BRUCE, Fig. 13, 1300 request (received), 1365 OT counter; Fig. 18, 1810, Trans Class, 1830 No of Ots; [0053] transactions which have been received from the two or more transaction issuing devices; [0176] FIG. 18 schematically illustrates a transaction issuing device 1800 maintaining data 1810 indicative of different classes of transaction identified by a transaction class 1820. Each transaction class is associated with a current number of outstanding transactions 1830 and one or more respective OT limit values 1840. This provides an example in which the one or more transaction issuing devices are configured to issue transactions relating to a transaction category selected from a group of two or more transaction categories; and the indication is applicable to a limit relating to a subset of the transaction categories).
In addition, Senn further teaches determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class (Senn, [0005] lines 28-32, determining, based on the timestamps of the first plurality of micro-transactions, that a quantity of the micro-transactions that occur within a predetermined amount of time exceeds the threshold transaction frequency; [0061] lines 1-10, the transaction approval policy may comprise a threshold transaction frequency. The threshold transaction frequency may represent a quantity of transactions of a certain type within a specified time period that, when exceeded, may cause financial services device 110 to flag or deny one or more transactions. For example, in some embodiments, when a threshold transaction frequency for a particular type of transaction has been exceeded, financial services device 110 may flag or deny any future transactions of a similar type; (as a handling action for the received request; i.e., deny); [0065] deny a flagged transaction).
As per claim 11, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 10 above. Senn further teaches wherein determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class comprises: conditioned upon the value of the availability indicator for the class indicating that a transaction of the class is not permitted to be executed or queued for execution within the processing environment, determining that the handling action is to reject the received request (Senn, [0005] lines 28-32, determining, based on the timestamps of the first plurality of micro-transactions, that a quantity of the micro-transactions that occur within a predetermined amount of time exceeds the threshold transaction frequency; [0061] lines 1-10, the transaction approval policy may comprise a threshold transaction frequency. The threshold transaction frequency may represent a quantity of transactions of a certain type within a specified time period that, when exceeded, may cause financial services device 110 to flag or deny one or more transactions. For example, in some embodiments, when a threshold transaction frequency for a particular type of transaction has been exceeded, financial services device 110 may flag or deny any future transactions of a similar type; (as a handling action, reject the received request; i.e., deny); [0065] deny a flagged transaction).
As per claim 13, it is a system claim of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. In addition, BRUCE further teaches one or more processors; and a memory comprising code stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, determines availability of a transaction in a processing environment, the transaction belonging to a class of transactions (BRUCE, Fig. 1, 100, CPU, 195 memory; Fig. 18, 1810, 1820 trans class; Abstract, Data processing apparatus comprises one or more transaction issuing devices configured to issue data processing transactions to be handled by a downstream device; [0176] FIG. 18 schematically illustrates a transaction issuing device 1800 maintaining data 1810 indicative of different classes of transaction identified by a transaction class 1820. Each transaction class is associated with a current number of outstanding transactions 1830 and one or more respective OT limit values 1840. This provides an example in which the one or more transaction issuing devices are configured to issue transactions relating to a transaction category selected from a group of two or more transaction categories; and the indication is applicable to a limit relating to a subset of the transaction categories).
As per claims 14-15, they are system claims of claims 4-5 respectively above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4-5 respectively above.
As per claim 19, it is a system claim of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. In addition, BRUCE further teaches A system comprising one or more processors; and a memory comprising code stored thereon that, when executed, performs a method for handling an inbound request for a transaction in a processing environment, the method comprising: receiving a request for a transaction in the processing environment, the transaction belonging to a class of transactions (BRUCE, Fig. 1, 100, CPU, 195 memory; Fig. 18, 1810, 1820 trans class; Abstract, Data processing apparatus comprises one or more transaction issuing devices configured to issue data processing transactions to be handled by a downstream device; [0176] FIG. 18 schematically illustrates a transaction issuing device 1800 maintaining data 1810 indicative of different classes of transaction identified by a transaction class 1820. Each transaction class is associated with a current number of outstanding transactions 1830 and one or more respective OT limit values 1840. This provides an example in which the one or more transaction issuing devices are configured to issue transactions relating to a transaction category selected from a group of two or more transaction categories; and the indication is applicable to a limit relating to a subset of the transaction categories).
Further, Senn teaches determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class (Senn, [0005] lines 28-32, determining, based on the timestamps of the first plurality of micro-transactions, that a quantity of the micro-transactions that occur within a predetermined amount of time exceeds the threshold transaction frequency; [0061] lines 1-10, the transaction approval policy may comprise a threshold transaction frequency. The threshold transaction frequency may represent a quantity of transactions of a certain type within a specified time period that, when exceeded, may cause financial services device 110 to flag or deny one or more transactions. For example, in some embodiments, when a threshold transaction frequency for a particular type of transaction has been exceeded, financial services device 110 may flag or deny any future transactions of a similar type; (as a handling action, reject the received request; i.e., deny); [0065] deny a flagged transaction).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCE and Senn, as applied to claims 1 and 13 respectively above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US Pub. 2011/0055921 A1).
As per claim 6, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 1 above. BRUCE further teaches determining the count value meets a second predetermined requirement; and setting the value of indicator for the class based on whether or not the count value is determined to meet the second predetermined requirement (BRUCE, Fig. 18, 1820 class; Fig. 12, 1240 Below OT MIN? (as second predetermined requirement), NO to 1250 Mark as reduceable; [0157] At a step 1250, the OT controller prepares a request marked (1160) to indicate that the limit is reduceable).
BRUCE and Senn fail to specifically teach setting the value of an availability indicator for the class based on whether or not the count value is determined to meet the second predetermined requirement.
However, Narayanaswamy teaches setting the value of an availability indicator for the class based on whether or not the count value is determined to meet the second predetermined requirement (Narayanaswamy, Fig. 6, stage three, 110 and 114; [0090] When a particular client exceeds the client-transaction threshold for an offending type of transaction ("YES" branch of 110'')…attack detection module 52 is able to label only those clients performing a particular type of transaction in excess of a corresponding client-transaction threshold as malicious and blocked).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of BRUCE and Senn with Narayanaswamy because Narayanaswamy’s teaching of labeling those clients performing a particular type of transaction in excess of a corresponding client-transaction threshold as malicious would have provided BRUCE and Senn’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily determining and detecting any attacks associated with the account and particular type of transactions which improving the system security and performance (see Narayanaswamy, [0004] “Multiple patterns may be used in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the attack detection. In order to improve the probability of detecting an attack”).
As per claim 7, BRUCE, Senn and Narayanaswamy teach the invention according to claim 6 above. BRUCE further teaches wherein the second predetermined requirement requires the count value to be less than a second threshold value, the second threshold value being less than the first threshold value; and wherein the second threshold value is less than a maximum number of active transactions of the class permitted within the processing environment (BRUCE, Fig. 12, 1240 Below OT min? (OT Min as second threshold); [0139] The threshold values are such that OT min is less than (or equal to) OT limit which in turn is less than (or equal to) OT max. OT limit represents the default limit on a number of outstanding transactions imposed, for example, by the system designer or at boot of the apparatus).
As per claims 16-17, they are system claims of claims 6-7 respectively above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 6-7 respectively above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCE, Senn and Narayanaswamy, as applied to claims 6 and 16 respectively above, and further in view of GNANASAMBANDAM et al. (US Pub. 2023/0187036 A1).
As per claim 8, BRUCE, Senn and Narayanaswamy teach the invention according to claim 6 above. Narayanaswamy teaches wherein setting the value of the availability indicator for the class comprises: the value of the availability indicator indicates that a transaction of the class is not permitted within the processing environment (Narayanaswamy, Fig. 6, stage three, 110 and 114; [0090] When a particular client exceeds the client-transaction threshold for an offending type of transaction ("YES" branch of 110'')…attack detection module 52 is able to label only those clients performing a particular type of transaction in excess of a corresponding client-transaction threshold as malicious and blocked),
In addition, BRUCE further teaches responsive to determining that the count value meets the second predetermined requirement, conditioned upon that a transaction of the class is not permitted within the processing environment, indicate that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment (BRUCE, Fig. 12, 1240 Below OT min? YES allow requests; [0123] the outstanding transaction limit applicable to an idle device can potentially be redistributed on a dynamic basis to one or more other busier devices. In this way, the apparatus of FIG. 1 provides an example of a data processing apparatus comprising: one or more transaction issuing devices configured to issue data processing transactions to be handled by a downstream device and to receive a completion acknowledgement in respect of each completed transaction; each transaction issuing device having associated transaction regulator circuitry configured to allow that transaction issuing device to issue transactions subject to a limit on a maximum number of outstanding transactions, an outstanding transaction being a transaction which has been issued but for which a completion acknowledgement has not yet been received; in which the downstream device is configured to issue an indication to a transaction issuing device, to authorise a change by the transaction regulator circuitry of the limit applicable to outstanding transactions by that transaction issuing device; [0157] if the current number of outstanding transactions is below OT limit then at a step 1240 the OT controller detects whether the current number is below OT min. If the answer is yes then the request is allowed at a step 1245; [Examiner noted: since the transaction processing system is regulating the transactions in dynamic way, therefore, the transaction maybe not permitted when below OT Min (see Fig. 12, 1260), and later once outstanding transactions count below the OT min again, the transactions will be allowed]).
BRUCE, Senn and Narayanaswamy fail to explicitly teach setting the value of the availability indicator to indicate that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment.
However, GNANASAMBANDAM teaches setting the value of the availability indicator to indicate that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment (GNANASAMBANDAM, [0486] cognitive intelligence platform 102 may use a smart contract to determine whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity. For example, cognitive intelligence platform 102 may provide information included in the request as input to one or more functions of the smart contract. The smart contract may process the information and may output a value indicating whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity. As an example, the organization type and the use type might be provided as input to a verification function of the smart contact, which may cause the smart contract to compare the received the use type with a set of use types permitted for the organization type. The smart contract may output a value indicating whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of BRUCE, Senn and Narayanaswamy with GNANASAMBANDAM because GNANASAMBANDAM’s teaching of value indicating that the type of transactions is permitted would have provided BRUCE, Senn and Narayanaswamy’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily identifying whether to processing the same type of transactions based on that value which improving the system performance and efficiency.
As per claim 18, it is a system claim of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 8 above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCE and Senn, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of GNANASAMBANDAM et al. (US Pub. 2023/0187036 A1).
As per claim 12, BRUCE and Senn teach the invention according to claim 10 above. Senn teaches wherein determining a handling action for the received request based on the value of the availability indicator for the class (Senn, [0005] lines 28-32, determining, based on the timestamps of the first plurality of micro-transactions, that a quantity of the micro-transactions that occur within a predetermined amount of time exceeds the threshold transaction frequency; [0061] lines 1-10, the transaction approval policy may comprise a threshold transaction frequency. The threshold transaction frequency may represent a quantity of transactions of a certain type within a specified time period that, when exceeded, may cause financial services device 110 to flag or deny one or more transactions. For example, in some embodiments, when a threshold transaction frequency for a particular type of transaction has been exceeded, financial services device 110 may flag or deny any future transactions of a similar type; (as a handling action for the received request; i.e., deny); [0065] deny a flagged transaction).
BRUCE and Senn fail to specifically teach conditioned upon the value of the availability indicator for the class indicating that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment, determining that the handling action is to execute or queue the received request.
However, GNANASAMBANDAM teaches conditioned upon the value of the availability indicator for the class indicating that a transaction of the class is permitted within the processing environment, determining that the handling action is to execute or queue the received request. (GNANASAMBANDAM, [0486] cognitive intelligence platform 102 may use a smart contract to determine whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity. For example, cognitive intelligence platform 102 may provide information included in the request as input to one or more functions of the smart contract. The smart contract may process the information and may output a value indicating whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity. As an example, the organization type and the use type might be provided as input to a verification function of the smart contact, which may cause the smart contract to compare the received the use type with a set of use types permitted for the organization type. The smart contract may output a value indicating whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of BRUCE and Senn with GNANASAMBANDAM because GNANASAMBANDAM’s teaching of value indicating that the type of transactions is permitted for execution would have provided BRUCE and Senn’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily identifying whether to processing the same type of transactions based on that value which improving the system performance and efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZUJIA XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 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, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ZUJIA XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2195