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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/497,973 entitled "EVENT REPLAY FOR DYNAMIC EVENT PROCESSING" filed on May 4, 2026, with claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, and 21-28 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20 are cancelled herein.
Claims 21- 28 are added herein.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, and 21-28 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 4, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, and 21-28 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 2, 2026.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, and 21-28 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A method comprising: receiving, …a request to initialize an event-driven product;
initializing, responsive to the request, a product state …for the event-driven product;
receiving, …, a plurality of events corresponding to the event-driven product, each respective event of the plurality of events comprising a respective state change, a respective effective time, and a respective event detail, a respective effective time, the respective state change including a respective …logic version corresponding to a respective computing logic of a plurality of … logics, wherein a first effective time of a first received state change is after a second effective time of a second subsequently received state change and a first … logic version of the first received state change differs from a second …. logic version of the second received state change;
wherein a first effective time of a first received state change is after a second effective time of a second subsequently received state change;
storing each respective state change in the product state …in association with the corresponding respective effective time;
receiving a request for the current state of the event-driven product; and
responsive to receiving the request for the current state:
processing each of the respective state changes in the product state data structure based at least in part on the respective effective times to determine the current state of the event-driven product,
wherein processing each of the respective state changes comprises:
ordering the respective state changes based at least in part on the respective effective times;
for each respective ordered state change, providing the event detail of the corresponding respective event to the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change;
receiving, from the respective computing logic, an output based on the event detail;
storing the output in a transaction register as an entry corresponding to the respective state change; and
determining the current state of the event-driven product based at least in part on entries of the transaction register;
providing, in response to the request, the current state of the event-driven product.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving…a request to initialize an event-driven product” and “providing… the current state of the event-driven product.” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. Support for the notion is found in the Applicant’s Specification:
[0013] In one approach to maintaining a financial product (e.g., a loan),… to maintain a current state of the financial product, such as the outstanding balance on a loan, and the like…. changes to the financial product, such as account balances, interest rates, and payment histories.
[0014] Aspects of the subject technology relate to a system for maintaining an event-driven product, such as a financial product…performs financial-product-specific computing logic on the set of events to derive a current state of the financial product.
[0019] Events may include transactions, interest accruals, payment reversals, and any other action relating to a financial product.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[by a server device][from at least one electronic device separate from the user device] [from a user device][computing]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[data structure]:
merely applying the generic computer data and file structures to the abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0017] The user device 102 may be, for example, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, or any other appropriate device
[0053] The electronic system 700 can be, … including but not limited to a laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, and wearable device (e.g., smartwatch, fitness band). The electronic system 700 may include various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, and 21-23: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Any alleged additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0017] The user device 102 may be, for example, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, or any other appropriate device
[0053] The electronic system 700 can be, … including but not limited to a laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, and wearable device (e.g., smartwatch, fitness band). The electronic system 700 may include various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 9 recites:
“A system comprising:
…a request to initialize an event-driven product;
initialize, responsive to the request, a product state … for the event- driven product;
receive a plurality of events corresponding to the event-driven product, each respective event of the plurality of events comprising a respective state change a respective effective time, and a respective event detail, the respective state change including a respective … logic version corresponding to a respective … logic of a plurality of … logics, wherein a first effective time of a first received state change is after a second effective time of a second subsequently received state change and a first computing logic version of the first received state change differs from a second … logic version of the second received state change;
store each respective state change in the product state … in association with the corresponding respective effective time;
receive a request for a current state of the event-driven product; and
responsive to receipt of the request for the current state:
process each of the respective state changes in the product state data structure based at least in part on the respective effective times to determine the current state of the event-driven product; wherein processing each of the respective state changes comprises:
ordering the respective state changes based at least in part on the respective effective times;
for each respective ordered state change, providing the event detail of the corresponding respective event to the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change;
receiving, from the respective computing logic, an output based on the event detail;
storing the output in a transaction register as an entry corresponding to the respective state change; and
determining the current state of the event-driven product based at least in part on entries of the transaction register; and
provide, in response to the request, the current state of the event-driven product”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving…a request to initialize an event-driven product” and “providing… the current state of the event-driven product.” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. Support for the notion is found in the Applicant’s Specification:
[0013] In one approach to maintaining a financial product (e.g., a loan),… to maintain a current state of the financial product, such as the outstanding balance on a loan, and the like…. changes to the financial product, such as account balances, interest rates, and payment histories.
[0014] Aspects of the subject technology relate to a system for maintaining an event-driven product, such as a financial product…performs financial-product-specific computing logic on the set of events to derive a current state of the financial product.
[0019] Events may include transactions, interest accruals, payment reversals, and any other action relating to a financial product.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a memory; and a processor circuit configured to: receive, from a user device] [computing]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[data structure]: merely applying the generic computer data and file structures to the abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0017] The user device 102 may be, for example, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, or any other appropriate device
[0053] The electronic system 700 can be, … including but not limited to a laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, and wearable device (e.g., smartwatch, fitness band). The electronic system 700 may include various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 10: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 13: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 14:
“processor circuit”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 16, 24, and 25: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Any alleged additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0017] The user device 102 may be, for example, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, or any other appropriate device
[0053] The electronic system 700 can be, … including but not limited to a laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, and wearable device (e.g., smartwatch, fitness band). The electronic system 700 may include various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 17 recites:
“…comprising: receiving, …a request to initialize an event-driven product;
initializing, responsive to the request, a product state …for the event-driven product;
receiving a plurality of events corresponding to the event-driven product, each respective event of the plurality of events comprising a respective state change a respective effective time, and a respective event detail, the respective state change including a respective …logic version corresponding to a respective … logic of a plurality of … logics, wherein a first effective time of a first received state change is after a second effective time of a second subsequently received state change and a first … logic version of the first received state change differs from a second … logic version of the second received state change;
storing each respective state change in the product state … in association with the corresponding respective effective time;
receiving a request for a current state of the event-driven product; and
responsive to receiving the request for the current state:
processing each of the respective state changes in the product state data structure based at least in part on the respective effective times to determine the current state of the event-driven product, wherein processing each of the respective state changes comprises:
ordering the respective state changes based at least in part on the respective effective times;
for each respective ordered state change, providing the event detail of the corresponding respective event to the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change;
receiving, from the respective computing logic, an output based on the event detail;
storing the output in a transaction register as an entry corresponding to the respective state change; and
determining the current state of the event-driven product based at least in part on entries of the transaction register; and
providing, in response to the request, the current state of the event-driven product.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving…a request to initialize an event-driven product” and “providing… the current state of the event-driven product.” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. Support for the notion is found in the Applicant’s Specification:
[0013] In one approach to maintaining a financial product (e.g., a loan),… to maintain a current state of the financial product, such as the outstanding balance on a loan, and the like…. changes to the financial product, such as account balances, interest rates, and payment histories.
[0014] Aspects of the subject technology relate to a system for maintaining an event-driven product, such as a financial product…performs financial-product-specific computing logic on the set of events to derive a current state of the financial product.
[0019] Events may include transactions, interest accruals, payment reversals, and any other action relating to a financial product.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform one or more operations] [from a user device][computing]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[data structure]: merely applying the generic computer data and file structures to the abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0017] The user device 102 may be, for example, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, or any other appropriate device
[0053] The electronic system 700 can be, … including but not limited to a laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, and wearable device (e.g., smartwatch, fitness band). The electronic system 700 may include various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 18, 26, 27, and 28:
“non-transitory computer-readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Any alleged additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0017] The user device 102 may be, for example, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, or any other appropriate device
[0053] The electronic system 700 can be, … including but not limited to a laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, and wearable device (e.g., smartwatch, fitness band). The electronic system 700 may include various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16-18, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neel ("SESSION STATE TRACKING", U.S. Publication Number: 20190102401 A1)in view of Zhu (“METHOD, DEVICE, COMPUTING EQUIPMENT AND MEDIUM FOR DETERMINING ACTUAL INTEREST RATE”, Chinese Patent Number: CN 111563812 A),in view of Roth (“ACCOUNT STATE SIMULATION SERVICE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS”, U.S. Patent Number: US 9075788 B1)
Regarding Claim 1,
Neel teaches,
A method comprising: receiving, by a server device and from a user device,
(Neel [0264] nodes in a multi-node database system may be in the form of a group of computers (e.g., workstations, personal computers) that are interconnected via a network.
Neel [Claim 7] the first database server requesting state information
Neel [0029] A DBI application is any logic running on one or more computing devices …where the DBI application receives input from the user… accessed through a web portal, over a network, by the user, an application that is installed on a machine of the user
Neel [0261] Users interact with a database server of a DBMS by submitting to the database server commands that cause the database server to perform operations on data stored in a database
Neel [0070] Client system 110 is connected to database servers 144A-B of DBMS 140 through network)
a request to initialize an event-driven…
(Neel [0131] Client application 112 may request for the generated explicit template to be used when for initializing an initial state
Neel [0127] client driver 114 may be configured to initialize the state of the session
Neel [0008] One approach is to track the transactions)
initializing, responsive to the request, a ... state data structure for the event-driven ...;
(Neel [Abstract] A session template data structure is generated that includes session attribute values describing various aspects of the session that is established between a client system and a database management system
Neel [0008] One approach is to track the transactions)
receiving, from at least one electronic device separate from the user device,
(Neel [Claim 13] the second database server requesting state information
Neel [0029] A DBI application is any logic running on one or more computing devices that uses a database connection to retrieve information from the database.)
a plurality of events corresponding to the event-driven ..., each respective event of the plurality of events comprising a respective state change a respective effective time, and a respective event detail; storing each respective state change in the ... state data structure in association with the corresponding respective effective time;
(Neel [0096] Session attributes correspond to session parameters and fields that affect/define an aspect of session state. There are session parameters that client system 110, itself, maintains....client-restorable attributes are configured so that their respective current values are stored on client system
Neel [0238] An example of a mutable is a call to SYSTIMESTAMP function
Neel [0239] Mutable values may also be kept for many other mutable functions such as MIN, MAX, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, LOCAL_TIMESTAMP and so on.
Neel [0137] particular aspect of the session state (e.g., updates language, time/date)
Neel [0126] Using session templates or other data structures, the Application Continuity records and maintains the state of a session from its inception through its lifecycle.)
receiving a request for a current state of the event-driven ...; and providing, in response to the request, the current state of the event-driven
(Neel [0126] Using session templates or other data structures
Neel [0079] In an embodiment, state tracker 148 includes callbacks...to perform one or more commands initiated through the session...communicates with state tracker...At the end of the client request, before returning a status to a client, state tracker 148 performs a call back (invokes) the component to determine the state of the session
Neel [0053] a current session state and then compares the template identifier with the existing template identifiers associated with the already stored session templates.
Neel [0163] The database server may maintain session state data about the session. The session state data reflects the current state of the session)
Neel does not teach product; the respective state change including a respective computing logic version corresponding to a respective computing logic of a plurality of computing logics, wherein a first effective time of a first received state change is after a second effective time of a second subsequently received state change and a first computing logic version of the first received state change differs from a second computing logic version of the second received state change; responsive to receiving the request for the current state: processing each of the respective state changes in the product state data structure based at least in part on the respective effective times to determine the current state of the event-driven product; wherein processing each of the respective state changes comprises: ordering the respective state changes based at least in part on the respective effective times; for each respective ordered state change, providing the event detail of the corresponding respective event to the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change; receiving, from the respective computing logic, an output based on the event detail; storing the output in a transaction register as an entry corresponding to the respective state change; and determining the current state of the event-driven product based at least in part on entries of the transaction register;
Zhu teaches,
product
(Zhu [page 4] The financial product transaction system 110 may be used, for example, to perform a deposit transaction or to perform a loan transaction)
…wherein a first effective time of a first received state change is after a second effective time of a second subsequently received state change…; responsive to receiving the request for the current state: processing each of the respective state changes in the product state data structure based at least in part on the respective effective times to determine the current state of the event-driven product…;
(Zhu [Abstract] determining the unspread value according to the current interest rate value and the preset amortization rule; and adjusting the interest rate value according to the unstall value to obtain the current interest rate value; and determining the current interest rate value as the actual interest rate, and outputting the actual interest rate.
Zhu [page 3] amortization data further includes product period number, principal value and cost value; the determining the unpaid value according to the current value of interest and the preset amortization rule comprises: calculating the integer value of each period according to the product period number, the principal value, the cost value and the current value of interest; and determining the unpaid value based on the cost value and the adjustment value for each period)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the interest rate adjustment of Zhu “determining an actual interest rate” (Zhu [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. interest rate adjustment) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “determining the current interest rate value as an actual interest rate, and outputting the actual interest rate” Zhu [Abstract])
Zhu does not teach the respective state change including a respective computing logic version corresponding to a respective computing logic of a plurality of computing logics; a first computing logic version of the first received state change differs from a second computing logic version of the second received state change; wherein processing each of the respective state changes comprises: ordering the respective state changes based at least in part on the respective effective times; for each respective ordered state change, providing the event detail of the corresponding respective event to the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change; receiving, from the respective computing logic, an output based on the event detail; storing the output in a transaction register as an entry corresponding to the respective state change; and determining the current state of the event-driven product based at least in part on entries of the transaction register;
Roth teaches,
the respective state change including a respective computing logic version corresponding to a respective computing logic of a plurality of computing logics,
(Roth [Col 4, Lines 20-27] units called “instances,” such as virtual or physical compute instances or storage instances. ... and a specified software stack (e.g., a particular version of an operating system...)
Roth [Col 7, Lines 42-50] state representation may be assigned a unique version number (e.g., using a timestamp or a universally-unique identifier (UUID))....using its version identifier or creation time as a search attribute)
and a first computing logic version of the first received state change differs from a second computing logic version of the second received state change;
(Roth [Col 7, Lines 42-50] state representation may be assigned a unique version number (e.g., using a timestamp or a universally-unique identifier (UUID))
Roth [Col 25, Lines 17-23] user 148 may wish to review a version that was created earlier, ... depending on the granularity of the timestamps supported for views and versions, it may be possible to re-use an existing version for several different timing descriptors)
wherein processing each of the respective state changes comprises: ordering the respective state changes based at least in part on the respective effective times;
(Roth [Col 9, Lines 9-15] The candidate causal operations may be identified using any desired combination of a variety of techniques in different embodiments: e.g., by timestamp correlation, by replaying or simulation of a sequence of operations from a known well-functioning state, or by pattern matching against a knowledge base of previous cause analysis attempts.
Roth [Col 49, Lines 33-35] may save the configuration settings for that user or group as of a particular time as an authorization snapshot in its unified metadata database)
for each respective ordered state change, providing the event detail of the corresponding respective event to the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change;
(Roth [Col 7, Lines 21-27] The user may be allowed to zoom in and out of various elements of the display to obtain greater or lesser detail regarding the account state in some implementations—e.g., at the most abstract level, just the service names of various subscribed services may be displayed, and by zooming in on a particular service icon, additional details may be made visible.
Roth [Col 7, Lines 33-43] the metadata manager may also support versioned storage of account state. A requester may specify that a representation of client account state as of a specified time (or as close to the specified time as possible)...each such state representation may be assigned a unique version number (e.g., using a timestamp or a universally-unique identifier (UUID)).)
receiving, from the respective computing logic, an output based on the event detail;
(Roth [Col 7, Lines 27-30] In some embodiments, the unified account state view may be provided in other formats, such as in accordance with an extensible markup language (XML) specification, or in plain text.
Roth [Col 38, Lines 59-60] return values of API calls or function calls, or outputs generated as a result of the operation simulation)
storing the output in a transaction register as an entry corresponding to the respective state change; and
(Roth [Col 28, Lines 5-8] A version snapshot corresponding to the currently displayed account state may be saved
Roth [Col 7, Lines 33-43] the metadata manager may also support versioned storage of account state. A requester may specify that a representation of client account state as of a specified time (or as close to the specified time as possible)...each such state representation may be assigned a unique version number (e.g., using a timestamp or a universally-unique identifier (UUID)).)
determining the current state of the event-driven product based at least in part on entries of the transaction register;
(Roth [Col 22, Line 17] even if the client requests the “current” account state
Roth [Col 35, Lines 21-24] the metadata manager may determine that the simulation is to be applied to the current state of the client account)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the logic versioning of Roth for a “a particular version of an operating system” (Roth [Col 4, Lines 27-30]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. logic versioning) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “state representation may be assigned a unique version number” Roth [Col 7, Lines 42-50])
Regarding Claim 2,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel teaches,
wherein the event detail of each respective event comprises processing logic corresponding to a type of the respective event.
(Neel [0103] There may be different types of session templates that include different types of session attribute-value pairs. Application Continuity may be configured to select which session attributes to include in which type of session template)
Regarding Claim 5,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel does not teach wherein the current state comprises an amount.
Zhu teaches,
wherein the current state comprises an amount.
(Zhu [page 6] data of contract interest, actual interest, adjustment amount, actual interest rate and the like obtained by the calculation
Zhu [page 3] includes product period number, principal value and cost value
Zhu [page 5] determining an adjustment value of the next period by the same method, and subtracting the adjustment value of the current period from the unburdened cost of the previous period to obtain the unburdened cost of the current period.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the interest rate adjustment of Zhu “determining an actual interest rate” (Zhu [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. interest rate adjustment) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “determining the current interest rate value as an actual interest rate, and outputting the actual interest rate” Zhu [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 6,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel teaches,
storing at least part of the current state of the event-driven product for subsequent retrieval.
(Neel [0096] maintains....client-restorable attributes are configured so that their respective current values are stored on client system
Neel [0163] The database server may maintain session state data about the session. The session state data reflects the current state of the session
Neel [0088] Replay driver 118 maintains queues of calls, and for each call at runtime keeps the Replay Context needed for a later replay.
Neel [0077] If replay is needed, under the direction of DBMS 140, client driver 114 resubmits each command.)
Regarding Claim 8,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel does not teach wherein the event-driven product comprises a financial product and at least one of the plurality of events comprises one or more of an initiation, payment, reversal, or interest accrual.
Zhu teaches,
wherein the event-driven product comprises a financial product and at least one of the plurality of events comprises one or more of an initiation, payment, reversal, or interest accrual.
(Zhu [page 5] first the actual interest and contract interest for the first term is determined based on the product period number, principal value and current value of interest... determining an adjustment value of the next period by the same method, and subtracting the adjustment value of the current period from the unburdened cost of the previous period to obtain the unburdened cost of the current period.
Zhu [Abstract] adjusting the interest rate value according to the unpaid value to obtain a current interest rate value
Zhu [page 4] The financial product transaction system 110 may be used, for example, to perform a deposit transaction or to perform a loan transaction)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the interest rate adjustment of Zhu “determining an actual interest rate” (Zhu [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. interest rate adjustment) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “determining the current interest rate value as an actual interest rate, and outputting the actual interest rate” Zhu [Abstract])
Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 22,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel does not teach wherein the respective computing logic version specifies a major version and a minor version.
Roth teaches,
wherein the respective computing logic version specifies a major version
(Roth [Col 33, Lines 8-23] an initial state version....an initial version of the account on which configuration changes are to be undone)
and a minor version.
(Roth [Col 11, Lines 65-66] snapshot versions of intermediate account states)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the logic versioning of Roth for a “a particular version of an operating system” (Roth [Col 4, Lines 27-30]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. logic versioning) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “state representation may be assigned a unique version number” Roth [Col 7, Lines 42-50])
Regarding Claim 23,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel does not teach wherein a respective effective time of at least one event of the plurality of events is before a created time of the at least one event.
Roth teaches,
wherein a respective effective time of at least one event of the plurality of events is before a created time of the at least one event.
(Roth [Col 27, Lines 6-10] The before and after states may be specified in a number of alternative ways in different implementations: e.g., either by indicating time values for the two states, or by referring to a pair of events that have been recorded, or by referring to previously-created saved versions of account state.
Roth [Col 33, Lines 60-65] an initial state (e.g., a previously-created version or a time for which a version should be created) of a client account may be specified, and a set of completed operations to be replayed in the order in which they originally occurred may be specified. Starting from the initial state
Examiner notes this refers to Specification [0037] "The state change may also indicate an effective time. New events may be created but may be put into effect at a time different from when it was created. This way, events may be applied retroactively or scheduled. Thus, an event's effective time may be at, before, or after the event's created time." Thud the prior art teaches, "...events may be applied retroactively ... an event's effective time may be ...before...the event's created time." )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the logic versioning of Roth for a “a particular version of an operating system” (Roth [Col 4, Lines 27-30]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. logic versioning) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “state representation may be assigned a unique version number” Roth [Col 7, Lines 42-50])
Regarding Claim 25,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Neel teaches,
wherein the transaction register represents the state of the event-driven product at different points in time, and wherein entries of the transaction register comprise entries generated based on the plurality of events.
(Neel [0164] The recorded session state summary provides a verification point for replay driver... point in the lifecycle of the session
Neel [0238] The new value may vary each time that function is called. An example of a mutable is a call to SYSTIMESTAMP function
Neel [0056] Session state information may be represented with individual attribute-value pairs or as opaque/transaction objects.)
Claim 27 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 28,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 17 as described earlier.
Neel teaches,
further comprising providing a cached version of the current state of the event-driven product to the user device.
(Neel [0066] The term “safe point” (or “safe place”) refers herein to a session state that is known and restorable... At a safe point the Application Continuity ... re-enable for a future replay (e.g., using driver statement cache).
Neel [0281] computing devices may be desktop computer systems, portable computer systems, handheld devices, networking devices or any other device)
Claims 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neel, Zhu, and Roth in view of Khalil (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SCALING BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS WITH SECURE OFF-CHAIN PAYMENT HUBS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20190139037 A1)
Regarding Claim 21,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel does not teach wherein each entry in the transaction register comprises an amount, and wherein determining the current state comprises determining a current balance of the event-driven product based at least in part on a sum of the amounts of the entries of the transaction register.
Khalil teaches,
wherein each entry in the transaction register comprises an amount
(Khalil [0024] initial deposits representing the total amounts that can be transacted in this channel are put on the blockchain in escrow.)
and wherein determining the current state comprises determining a current balance of the event-driven product based at least in part on a sum of the amounts of the entries of the transaction register.
(Khalil [0029] wherein info is proof of sufficient balance to cover the amount indicated in the transaction
Khalil [0063] The sum of all balances of the Merkleized interval tree must be equal to the entire funds stored in the payment hub's smart contract.
Khalil [0094] the aggregated user off-chain balances.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the balance amount of Khalil for an “aggregated user off-chain balances” (Khalil [0094]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. balance amount) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “info is proof of sufficient balance to cover the amount indicated in the transaction” Khalil [0029])
Regarding Claim 24,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Neel does not teach wherein the respective computing logic is configured to reference entries in the transaction register to obtain a current balance of the event- driven product.
Khalil teaches,
wherein the respective computing logic is configured to reference entries in the transaction register to obtain a current balance of the event- driven product.
(Khalil [0029] wherein info is proof of sufficient balance to cover the amount indicated in the transaction
Khalil [0063] The sum of all balances of the Merkleized interval tree must be equal to the entire funds stored in the payment hub's smart contract.
Khalil [0094] the aggregated user off-chain balances)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the session state tracking of Neel to incorporate the balance amount of Khalil for an “aggregated user off-chain balances” (Khalil [0094]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. balance amount) to a known concept (i.e. session state) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “info is proof of sufficient balance to cover the amount indicated in the transaction” Khalil [0029])
Claim 26 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on May 4, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“The disclosed solution is a versioned, event-driven processing architecture in which each state change is processed using computing logic corresponding to a computing-logic version associated with that state change, and computation outputs are stored in a transaction register from which current state is derived. "
Examiner responds:
The Specification describes the invention as [0014] “The system takes in a set of events as input and performs financial-product-specific computing logic on the set of events to derive a current state of the financial product. The logic is implemented by a calculation engine and is versioned, meaning that events can be replayed idempotently while supporting changes to the computing logic over time” and [0039] “The system may provide the event details of one or more state changes to an engine corresponding to the engine version of the respective state change. When event details are received by the engine, the engine processes the event by updating the state of the corresponding financial product. This processing may involve a set of business rules and logic that determine how the state of the financial product should change based on the event details.”
The “events”, “financial-product-specific computing logic”, “calculation engine”, versioning, and “set of business rules and logic” are all abstract ideas.
One abstract idea cannot integrate another abstract idea into a practical application. The invention is merely the abstract idea performed on a processor. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
The Applicant states:
“The amended claims do not merely recite generic "versioning." Instead, they recite a
specific event-processing architecture in which per-event computing-logic versions control how individual state changes are processed, computation outputs are persisted in a transaction register, and current state is derived from that register. "
Examiner responds:
The “specific event-processing architecture” or computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0017] The user device 102 may be, for example, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, or any other appropriate device
[0053] The electronic system 700 can be, … including but not limited to a laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, and wearable device (e.g., smartwatch, fitness band). The electronic system 700 may include various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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).
The Applicant states:
“This ordered combination defines a specific improvement to event-driven data-processing systems and computer functionality. "
Examiner responds:
The invention of the instant application “merely applies” conventional technological components to an abstract idea and does not improve any technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(d) for overcoming “well-understood, routine, and conventional” designation by utilizing a non-conventional network and “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” yielding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technological field.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Khalil (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SCALING BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS WITH SECURE OFF-CHAIN PAYMENT HUBS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20190139037 A1)
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wikipedia (“Version control”, 7 August 2022) states, “Revision control may also track changes ....This gives system administrators another way to easily track changes made and a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise” and “This system of control implicitly allowed returning to an earlier state of the design, for cases in which an engineering dead-end was reached in the development of the design. A revision table was used to keep track of the changes made.”
Borrill (“ENTANGLED LINKS, TRANSACTIONS AND TREES FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEMS”, U.S. Patent Number: 9774401 B1) proposes bipartite temporal intimacy between pairs of computers, using an idempotent, reversible token method which presents no observable external “change” until a communication of information needs to occur between the computers, and which maintains the potential for “bounded (or unbounded) reversibility” in case the intended information dispatched by a source computational entity is not captured or properly accepted by a destination computational entity. The mechanism enables distributed computers in a network to remain continuously aware of each other's presence; to communicate on a logically nearest neighbor basis in a secure and reliable manner in which packets passed over these links do not conflict with normal traffic or cause the available resources of the link to be exceeded; and that atomicity, consistency, isolation, and “reversible durability” may be maintained for transactions when perturbations occur.
Rogerson (“AUTOMATED AND RELIABLE DETERMINATION OF A FORWARD VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH A FUTURE TIME PERIOD BASED ON OBJECTIVELY DETERMINED EXPECTATIONS RELATED THERETO”, U.S. Patent Number: US 11386486 B1) proposes computing a forward interest rate for a select future time period subsequent to a current date, such as 1 month, 3 month, 6 month or 12 month term, utilizing data observed or otherwise derived from the trading of futures contracts having short term interest rate based underliers, e.g. based on overnight interest rates, and, in one embodiment, are integrated with an electronic transaction processing system, e.g. an electronic trading system, to access data indicative of the trading thereof, and therefore avoid reliance upon subjective/opinion inputs. Generally, the disclosed embodiments generate a model of expected interest rates for every day of the time period for which a forward interest rate is desired based on a set of interest rate futures contract whose expiration periods cover the period.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Tran, can be reached on (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 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights