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 Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/497,973 entitled "EVENT REPLAY FOR DYNAMIC EVENT PROCESSING" filed on November 6, 2025, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 6, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Final Office Action mailed August 6, 2025.
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.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 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 and 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, the processing of each respective state change being performed using the respective … logic corresponding to the respective … logic version of the respective state change; 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:
[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
Claim 2: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 3:
“data structure”: merely applying the generic computer data and file structures to the abstract idea.
Claims 4-8: (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 and a respective effective time, 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; 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 11:
“processor circuit”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“data structure”: merely applying the generic computer data and file structures to the abstract idea.
Claim 12: (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 15:
“processor circuit”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 16: (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 and a respective effective time, 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, the processing of each respective state change being performed using the respective … logic corresponding to the respective … logic version of the respective state change;
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
Claim 18:
“non-transitory computer-readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 19:
“non-transitory computer-readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“data structure”: merely applying the generic computer data and file structures to the abstract idea.
Claim 20:
“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 1-20 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 and a respective effective time; 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 [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, the processing of each respective state change being performed using the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change;
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; the processing of each respective state change being performed using the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change;
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)
the processing of each respective state change being performed using the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change;
(Roth [Col 4, Lines 27-30] a particular version of an operating system, which may in turn run on top of a hypervisor
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)
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 each respective event further comprises an event detail
(Neel [0049] “Session template” term refers herein to a set of session attributes values at a point in a lifecycle of a database session. Each session attribute describes a particular aspect of a session state
Neel [0050] include attribute names in addition to the corresponding attribute values. Session template implicitly includes attribute names when the session template is configured to include a particular set of session attributes in a particular arrangement. The particular values placement within the arrangement may indicate the particular values corresponding session attribute. The term “attribute-value pair” refers herein to a data structure that includes session attribute value and the corresponding attribute name)
Regarding Claim 3,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Neel teaches,
receiving, from the respective computing logic, an output based on the event detail, wherein the output comprises at least part of the current state.
(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 [Claim 14] non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, wherein the instructions include a set of instructions)
Neel does not teach providing the event detail of the respective event comprising the respective state change to the respective computing logic to the computing logic of the respective event
Zhu teaches,
providing the event detail of the respective event comprising the respective state change to the respective computing logic to the computing logic of the respective event
(Zhu [Claim 10] computer readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions
Zhu [page 4] determining an unpaid value according to the current utilization value and a preset amortization rule
Zhu [page 2] amortization parameters and amortization rules corresponding to different service scenes are respectively determined, and codes are written according to the amortization parameters and the amortization rules.
Examiner equates "version" to various amortization rules and the software codes written according to the various amortization rules )
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 4,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Neel teaches,
wherein the respective event comprise a type and the event detail comprises the respective computing logic corresponds to the type.
(Neel [0103] There may be different types of session templates that include different types of session attribute-value pairs.... may be used in a client-restorable typed template. ...the DBMS 140 is aware that the aspect of the session state that those session attributes represent
Neel [0028] A client driver for a database interfacing (DBI) application maintains a connection pool,...connection may refer to...a logical configuration, or both. There may be a one-to-one mapping of logical connections (i.e., database sessions) to physical connections.
Neel [0077] a database server of DBMS 140, such as database server 144A, sends a replay context and LTXIDs (Logical Transaction Identifier) to client driver 114, and the client driver holds the LTXIDs)
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 7,
Neel, Zhu, and Roth teach the event replay for dynamic event processing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Neel teaches,
ordering the respective state changes based at least in part on the respective effective times; and sequentially processing the ordered respective state changes.
(Neel [0108] different levels of template hierarchy correspond to session templates that describe attributes managed by DBMS 140 components at different layers.... components may be layered hierarchically based on the sequence in which the components are invoked when a database request is processed.
Neel [0239] values may also be kept for many other mutable functions such as MIN, MAX, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, LOCAL_TIMESTAMP and so on.)
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 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on November 6, 2025, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant refers to claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 ("Verifying a Bank Customer's Identity to Permit an ATM Transaction") of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples issued by the USPTO…. Therefore the combination of the additional elements are determined to be "significantly more....because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea...performed...in anon-conventional and non-generic way, even though the steps use well-known components (a processor and mobile communication device)."
Examiner responds:
Firstly, Applicant’s invention does not follow the fact pattern of Example 35. Applicant’s invention does not utilize a “specialized device”, such as an ATM.
Secondly, the Applicant’s invention differs from Example 35 where a specialized device (an ATM) is modified from its “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” to produce a random code and further adapted to decrypt a mobile device’s encrypted image output. The ATM operates in a non‐conventional and non‐generic way to ensure that a customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. The invention improves upon the hardware of a specialized device, for a public ATM to decrypt the contents of an individual’s personal mobile device to identify a user. Furthermore, the ATM’s subsequent sending of a control signal to provide or prevent access to the keypad of the ATM effects a physical transformation.
Thirdly, Applicant’s technological components (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.
Fourthly, Applicant’s technological components (additional elements) function as expected in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner, see MPEP 2106.05(d). In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
Lastly, in the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
The Applicant states:
“The Specification of the subject application explains, for example, that "[t]he system takes in a set of events as input and performs...computing logic on the set of events to derive a current state... [tlhe logic is...versioned, meaning that events can be replayed idempotently while supporting changes to the computing logic over time. In this way, the system provides, for example, the following advantages … Accordingly, the Specification of the subject application expressly provides multiple examples of "how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology," "
Examiner responds:
The notion of versioning, waypoints, rollback are well know concepts in version control. As Wikipedia (“Version control”, 7 August 2022) states the aforementioned benefits, “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.”
Thusly, it fails to “improve[s] a computer or other technology.”
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of no new/additional prior art.
The prior art reference, Roth, teaches the newly added limitations:
“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
“the processing of each respective state change being performed using the respective computing logic corresponding to the respective computing logic version of the respective state change”:
Roth [Col 4, Lines 27-30] a particular version of an operating system, which may in turn run on top of a hypervisor
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
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
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