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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 09/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5 are directed to a system which are statutory classes of invention.
Nevertheless, independent claim 1 is directed in part to an abstract idea. The claims are drawn to commercial or legal interactions (under certain methods of organizing human activity), or processing Bank Administration Institute (BAI) files, in this case. The independent claims recite the steps which are done by using generic computing components. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it falls within the “Commercial Legal Interactions” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describes the concept of processing Bank Administration Institute (BAI) files using these additional elements: processor and server. These additional elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to 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.
The claims 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 of a processor and server to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 –
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith “”US 2005/0246269 A1” (Smith).
Regarding Claim 1: A method for processing Bank Administration Institute (BAI) files, the method comprising:
identifying, by at least one processor of an integration server, copies of BAI files indicative of customer payment information (at least see Smith Abstract; Fig. 4; [0216]);
importing, by the at least one processor, data from the BAI files into a staging table (at least see Smith Abstract; Fig. 5A; [0085]);
parsing, by the at least one processor, the data in the staging table using a hierarchy defining a file level, a group level, an account level, and a transaction level to generate hierarchized data (at least see Smith Abstract; Fig. 5B; [0068] and [0100]-[0101);
normalizing, by the at least one processor, the hierarchized data into tables (at least see Smith Abstract; Fig. 4; [0068]); and
copying, by the at least one processor, differences between the hierarchized data and previous hierarchized data to a workflow associated with identifying payment amounts in the hierarchized data (at least see Smith Abstract; Fig. 3; [0056]-[0058] and [0073]).
Regarding Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the hierarchized data comprises: identifying, in a BAI file of the BAI files, a 01 file header and a 99 file trailer for the file level; identifying, in the BAI file, for the group level, a 02 group header and a 98 group trailer in between the 01 file header and the 99 file trailer; identifying, in the BAT file, for the account level, a 03 account header and a 49 account trailer, plus 88 extended data, in between the 02 group header and the 98 group trailer; and identifying, in the BAI file, for the transaction level, one or more transactions using a 16 transaction header, plus 88 extended data, in between the 03 account header and the 49 account trailer (at least see Smith [0151]; it understand to the ordinary a person in the art at the time of the invention as these features as design of choice in making the layout of the document).
Regarding Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein generating the hierarchized data comprises: identifying, in the BAI file, in between the 03 account header and the 49 account trailer, extended account data using a 88 identifier (at least see Smith [0015]).
Regarding Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein generating the hierarchized data comprises: identifying, in the BAI file, in between the 16 transaction header of a first transaction and the 16 transaction header of a second transaction or the 49 account trailer, extended transaction data using a 88 identifier (at least see Smith [0017]).
Regarding Claim 5: The method of claim 4, further comprising: extracting, using a set of rules, a bank reference number from the extended transaction data (at least see Smith [0011]).
Regarding Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein extracting the bank reference number from the extended transaction data is based on identifying rows of the tables using the 88 identifier (at least see Smith [0085]).
Regarding Claim 7: The method of claim 5, further comprising: sending the bank reference number to the workflow (at least see Smith [0016]).
Regarding Claims 8-20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance:
Argument A:
Thus, the present claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and possible more concrete structures to the Claims limitations. The recitation of the generic computer component of a processor, the above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Specifically, the claims amount for processing Bank Administration Institute (BAI) files, the method comprising: identifying, by at least one processor of an integration server, copies of BAI files indicative of customer payment information; importing, by the at least one processor, data from the BAI files into a staging table; parsing, by the at least one processor, the data in the staging table using a hierarchy defining a file level, a group level, an account level, and a transaction level to generate hierarchized data; normalizing, by the at least one processor, the hierarchized data into tables; and copying, by the at least one processor, differences between the hierarchized data and previous hierarchized data to a workflow associated with identifying payment amounts in the hierarchized data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Argument B:
Accordingly, for at least this reason, the Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are patentable over the cited reference. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Such as “parsing, by the at least one processor, the data in the staging table using a hierarchy defining a file level, a group level, an account level, and a transaction level to generate hierarchized data (at least see Smith Abstract; Fig. 5B; [0068] and [0100]-[0101).” Smith mention " [0085] At step 503, each of the data files is parsed using the file adapter that was loaded for processing the files. During processing the data files (e.g., BAI files), at step 504 the file adapter invokes various application programming interfaces (APIs) on the data consolidator and assigns a sequence number (unique identifier) to each transaction in the data file. As described above, the sequence number may be a consecutive sequence number or a date-based sequence number. At step 505, an XML representation of any additional information (if any) included in the file is created as part of this process. At step 506, the processed information extracted from the data files (including the XML representation, if any) is stored in the data consolidator repository. Currently, in the case of BAI files standard information is stored in database tables in the repository. The XML representation of any additional (or extra) data in the BAI files (if any) is also stored in the repository so that this additional information may retrieved and provided in response to user requests for information.” Also “[0089] At a high level, the data consolidator provides the means to consolidate account information in a database repository and retrieve that information. It also handles recording of historical data for accounts. An adapter module of the data consolidator (DCAdapter) contains the logic to store and retrieve information from a database repository.” Therefore Smith meets the scope of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627