DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on September 16, 2025.
• Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
New claim objections have been entered due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 101 rejections for being directed to software per se due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 7-8, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for testing payment rules to use in a transaction system. The Specification at [0023] states:
“Transaction processors play a critical role in ensuring that financial transactions are processed accurately and efficiently. However, testing transaction processors can be a complex and time-consuming process, often involving manual testing procedures that are prone to errors. This can result in inaccurate processing of financial transactions, which can lead to lost revenue, compliance issues, and reputational damage. Additionally, the increasing volume and complexity of financial transactions render traditional testing methods inadequate to simulate real-world scenarios. In some aspects, the present disclosure includes various methods and systems that provide a more efficient and effective transaction processor testing to help organizations ensure the accuracy and reliability of their financial transactions.”
The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of testing payment rules to use in a transaction system to improve transaction processing including improving accuracy of processing financial transactions, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, on pages 7-8 that the claimed limitation of “transactions” is a type of data and can be replaced with the generic term “data,” the argument is not persuasive. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, and in view of the Specification at least at [0023], the Examiner is interpreting the claim limitation of a “transaction” to be a financial transaction. See MPEP 2111, which states “During patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” (emphasis added).
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites “the subset of the random transaction rules identifying relevant fields in the payload using the predefined transaction map.” The limitation is grammatically incorrect. There appears to be a missing semi-colon. Was recites “the subset of the random transaction rules; identifying relevant fields in the payload using the predefined transaction map” (emphasis added) meant here?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to a system (claims 1 and 17) and a method (claim 9). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 9, and 17 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 9, and 17 recite, in part, a system and a method of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites a transaction-processor tester system for examining, the transaction-processor tester system comprising: create, by a rule generator, random transaction rules based on predefined transaction parameters and predefined limits associated with the predefined transaction parameters; receive and store the random transaction rules; receive an input indicative of at least one selected rule type at a rule selector; retrieve a subset of the random transaction rules based on the input at the rule selector; generate simulated transactions by a transaction generator based on a predefined transaction map and predefined transaction-parameter conditions; determine, by the transaction generator, expected values associated with the processing of the simulated transactions based on the subset of the random transaction rules; output, by the transaction generator, expected values based on the simulated transactions that are in accordance with the subset of the random transaction rules; receive, at a payload parser, a payload, the payload comprising an output of the transaction processor from processing the subset of the simulated transactions, identify relevant fields in the payload, by the payload processor, using the predefined transaction map; extract, by the payload processor, actual values from the output of the transaction processor based on the relevant fields; and output, by a payload validator, a test result for the transaction processor based on the actual values and expected values.
Claim 9 recites a method for testing, the method comprising: generating random transaction rules based on predefined transaction parameters and predefined limits associated with the predefined transaction parameters; determining a subset of the random transaction rules corresponding to at least one selected rule type; generating simulated transactions based on a predefined transaction map and predefined transaction-parameter conditions; determining expected results associated with processing of the simulated transactions based on the subset of the random transaction rules; receiving a payload resulting from an input of the simulated transactions and the subset of random transaction rules; identifying relevant fields in the payload using the predefined transaction map; extracting test results from the payload of the transaction processor based on the relevant fields; and determining an operational state based on the expected results and actual results.
Claim 17 recites a transaction-processor tester system for examining, the transaction-processor tester system comprising: create random transaction rules, by a rules generator, based on predefined transaction parameters and predefined limits associated with the predefined transaction parameters; receive, by a rule selector, an input indicative of at least one selected rule type; retrieve, by the rule selector, a subset of the random transaction rules based on the input; generate, by a transaction generator, simulated transactions based on a predefined transaction map and predefined transaction-parameter conditions; determining, by a transaction generator, expected results associated with processing of the simulated transactions based on the subset of the random transaction rules; receive, by a payload parser, a payload from the transaction processor, the payload comprising an output of the transaction processor from processing the subset of the simulated transactions; identify, by the payload parser, relevant fields in the payload using the predefined transaction map; extract, by the payload parser, actual results from the output of the transaction processor based on the relevant fields; output, by a payload validator, test result based on the actual results and expected results.
The Specification at [0023] states:
“Transaction processors play a critical role in ensuring that financial transactions are processed accurately and efficiently. However, testing transaction processors can be a complex and time-consuming process, often involving manual testing procedures that are prone to errors. This can result in inaccurate processing of financial transactions, which can lead to lost revenue, compliance issues, and reputational damage. Additionally, the increasing volume and complexity of financial transactions render traditional testing methods inadequate to simulate real-world scenarios. In some aspects, the present disclosure includes various methods and systems that provide a more efficient and effective transaction processor testing to help organizations ensure the accuracy and reliability of their financial transactions.”
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for testing payment rules to use in a transaction system, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a transaction processor do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of claim 1 include a transaction processor; a transaction-processor tester system comprising a computer system having one or more computer processors, each having instructions stored thereon, that when executed cause the computer system to perform claim functions; a storage medium communicatively coupled with the rule generator; a rule selector communicatively coupled to the storage medium. The additional elements of claim 9 include a transaction processor. The additional elements of claim 17 include a transaction processor; a computer system having one or more computer processors, each having instructions stored thereon, that when executed cause the computer system to perform claim functions. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions of receiving input and generating simulated transactions and outing a result) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12106298 B1 (“Durieux”) discloses design, test, development, certification, deployment, and maintenance infrastructures for payment solutions are disclosed herein. A disclosed system includes a software binaries generator for generating an executable for a source code file. The source code file includes an EMV kernel. The disclosed system also includes a testing environment that accepts the executable and simulates the executable with a virtual payment processing hardware system in a simulation. The testing environment verifies EMV compliance for the executable via the simulation. The disclosed system also includes a security module that generates a proof of trust for the executable in response to the testing environment verifying EMV compliance for the executable and provides the proof of trust for the executable for an external EMV compliance authority.
US 20240020219 A1 (“Jain”) discloses determining test cases to be run upon changes in software application code. In one embodiment, a system receives a test suite containing multiple test cases designed to perform the testing of a software application, the software application containing one or more components. The system executes each test case to determine a corresponding sequence of components executed in the software application for the test case, and then stores a dependency data indicating for each test case the corresponding determined sequence of components. Upon determining that a first component has been changed, the system identifies a first set of test cases that cause execution of the first component by performing a reverse look-up in the dependency data. The system then includes the identified first set of test cases in the test cases to be run for re-testing the software application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights