DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 11/28/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. Claims 1, 10, 15 are amended
b. Claims 7-8, 14, 19 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, 20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-8, 9 are directed to a system computer implemented method, claims 10-14 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 15, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 15, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer program product for securing data transfers across multiple devices on a network, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer- readable medium:
[B] receiving, using a network, a transfer identifier associated with a data transfer request from a transmitting node, wherein the transfer identifier comprises a QR code, wherein the transfer identifier comprises information associated with one or more associated parties of the data transfer request and a first data transfer value;
[C] creating a transfer record associated with the transfer identifier for the data transfer request, wherein the transfer record indicates one or more nodes in which the data transfer request has transmitted;
[D] receiving a transfer data packet associated with a receiving node, wherein the receiving node received the data transfer request from a transmitting node, wherein the transfer data packet comprises the transfer identifier comprising a second data transfer value and indicates the transmitting node that sent the data transfer request to the receiving node;
[E] causing a verification signal to be transmitted to the receiving node in an instance in which the transfer data packet is verified, wherein the transfer data packet is verified in an instance in which (i) the transmitting node of the transfer data packet is one of the one or more nodes indicated on the transfer record; and (ii) the second data transfer value received in the transfer data packet matches the first data transfer value of the data transfer request;
[F] causing a security notification to be transmitted to the receiving node, via the network, in an instance in which the transmitting node of the transfer data packet is different than the one or more nodes indicated on the transfer record
[G] locking the transmitting node based on the security notification and indicate to subsequent nodes that the transfer identifier associated with the data transfer request is subject to the security notification to stop execution of the data transfer request
[H] updating the transfer record based on the transfer data packet, wherein the receiving node is added to the transfer record.
Independent claim 15 (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) recites: generating a transfer record ([C]); verifying transfer data packet ([E]); transmitting a security notification ([F]); locking the transmitting node ([G]), and updating the transfer record ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.” activity.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover agreements in the form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step creating a transfer record, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually with pen and paper, or mentally creates a record. Further, the step causing a verification signal to be transmitted to the receiving node in an instance in which the transfer data packet is verified, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally transmitting a verification signal. Further, the step causing a security notification to be transmitted to the receiving node, via the network, in an instance in which the transmitting node of the transfer data packet is different than the one or more nodes indicated on the transfer record, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually with pen and paper, or mentally transmitting the security notification. Further, the step locking the transmitting node based on the security notification and indicate to subsequent nodes that the transfer identifier associated with the data transfer request is subject to the security notification to stop execution of the data transfer request, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually with pen and paper, or mentally performing the operations. Further, the step updating the transfer record based on the transfer data packet, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally updating the record. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 15, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “processing device,” and “storage device,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the transfer identifier comprises information associated with one or more associated parties of the data transfer request and a first data transfer value”, wherein the receiving node received the data transfer request from a transmitting node”, wherein the transfer data packet comprises the transfer identifier comprising a second data transfer value and indicates the transmitting node that sent the data transfer request to the receiving node;” “wherein the transfer data packet is verified in an instance in which (i) the transmitting node of the transfer data packet is one of the one or more nodes indicated on the transfer record; and (ii) the second data transfer value received in the transfer data packet matches the first data transfer value of the data transfer request;” “wherein the receiving node is added to the transfer record”, as applied to the transfer record, the receiving node, and the transfer data packet are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving a transfer identifier request ([B]), receiving a transfer data package ([D]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 15, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 15, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 10, 15 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2, which is representative of dependent claims 11, 16, recites:
[A] causing a transmission of the transfer record to a network node, wherein the network node uses the transfer record to verify the data transfer request.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 (which is representative of dependent claims 11, 16) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
[A] verify the data transfer request at each node that the data transfer request is transmitted during execution.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, which is representative of dependent claims 13, 18, recites:
[A] updating the transfer data packet based on the transfer record; and
[B] causing a transmission of the transfer data packet to the receiving node.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, “re-computing”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 (which is representative of dependent claims 13, 18) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, which is representative of dependent claims 20, recites:
[A] causing an execution of a data transfer based on the data transfer request.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 (which is representative of dependent claims 20) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, which are representative of dependent claims 12, 17, as well as claim 5, recite:
wherein the transfer record indicates a sequential ordering of one or more nodes in which the data transfer request was transmitted.
wherein the transfer data packet comprises at least a portion of the data transfer request received by the receiving node.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the transfer record; the transfer data packet – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials.”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 5, 12, 17 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkaik et al (US 2018/0026812), in view of Fall et all (US 2014/0032730), in further view of Yanagihara (US 2008/0273474), in further view if Hao et al (US 2024/0057028).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 15: Verkaik discloses: A system for securing data transfers across multiple devices on a network, the system comprising: at least one processing device, that when executed by the at least one processing device, causes the at least one processing device to perform the steps of: {see at least fig1, [0024] processor, storage}
receiving, using a network, a transfer identifier associated with a data transfer request from a transmitting node {see at least fig7, rc702, [0073, unique identifier; [0068] record with unique identifier}, wherein the transfer identifier comprises a QR code {the identifier as a QR code is non-functional as it does not alter how the machine functions (i.e. receiving a transfer identifier, whatever the form of the identifier is), and, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious (In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
creating a transfer record associated with the transfer identifier for the data transfer request, wherein the transfer record indicates one or more nodes in which the data transfer request has transmitted; {see at least fig6, rc602, rc604, rc606, rc608, [0068]-[0070] nodes and transmission records. Verkaik fails to explicitly disclose the transfer based on request; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that data transfers can be based on a previous request – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
receiving, via the network, a transfer data packet associated with a receiving node, wherein the receiving node received the data transfer request from a transmitting node, wherein the transfer data packet comprises the transfer identifier
… wherein (i) the transfer data packet is verified in an instance in which the transmitting node of the transfer data packet is one of the one or more nodes indicated on the transfer record; {see at least [0068]-[0069] transmission record … receiving node}
updating the transfer record based on the transfer data packet and the security notification, wherein the receiving node and the security notification added to the transfer record. {see at least {0057] routing table up to date (reads on updating record)}
Verkaik does not disclose, however, Fall discloses:
causing a verification signal to be transmitted, via the network, to the receiving node in an instance in which the transfer data packet is verified, … {see at least [0087] conformation signal …}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Verkaik to include the elements of Fall. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to verify that the transactions. In the instant case, Verkaik evidently discloses generating and updating a transfer record. Fall is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a verification signal to verify in the same or similar context. Since both generating and updating a transfer record, as well as using a verification signal to verify are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Verkaik, as well as Fall would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Verkaik / Fall.
Verkaik / Fall does not disclose, however, Yanagihara discloses:
cause a security notification to be transmitted to the receiving node, via the network, in an instance in which the transmitting node of the transfer data packet is different than the one or more nodes indicated on the transfer record; {see at least [0127] node 2 receives a packet with security information attached}
lock the transmitting node based on the security notification and {see at least fig3, fig2, rc2e node ends a data transmission stop message}
indicate to subsequent nodes that the transfer identifier associated with the data transfer request is subject to the security notification to stop execution of the data transfer request; and {see at least [0150] deletion request message to another node 2 (reads on subsequent node). The claim element “to stop execution of the data transfer request” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Verkaik, Fall to include the elements of Yanagihara. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to prevent sensitive data to reach unintended destinations. In the instant case, Verkaik, Fall evidently discloses generating and updating a transfer record. Yanagihara is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of locking the transmission in case of security breach in the same or similar context. Since both generating and updating a transfer record, as well as locking the transmission in case of security breach are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Verkaik, Fall, as well as Yanagihara would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Verkaik, Fall / Yanagihara.
Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara does not disclose, however, Hao discloses:
wherein the transfer identifier comprises information associated with one or more associated parties of the data transfer request and a first data transfer value; {see at least [0125] device sends identifiers (reads on information associated with associated parties)}
the transfer identifier comprising a second data transfer value {see at least [0125] first threshold, first transfer value, second transfer value …}
and (ii) the second data transfer value received in the transfer data packet matches the first data transfer value of the data transfer request; {see at least [0125] values are greater or equal than threshold (reads on matching)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara to include the elements of Hao. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to securely identify transfers. In the instant case, Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara evidently discloses generating and updating a transfer record. Hao is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a transfer identifier with transfer value in the same or similar context. Since both generating and updating a transfer record, as well as a transfer identifier with transfer value are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, as well as Hao would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara / Hao.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, 16: Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10, 15. Verkaik further discloses:
causing a transmission of the transfer record to a network node, wherein the network node uses the transfer record to verify the data transfer request. {see at least [0068]-[0069] record of the transmission; uplink part. The claim element “wherein the network node uses the transfer record to verify the data transfer request” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Regarding Claims 3, 12, 17: Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10, 15. Fall further discloses:
wherein the transfer record indicates a sequential ordering of one or more nodes in which the data transfer request was transmitted. {see at least [0074] next node in the sequence}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao to include additional elements of Fall. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to make sure that all nodes are addressed in the proper order. In the instant case, Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao evidently discloses generating and updating a transfer record. Fall is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a sequential ordering of the nodes in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4: Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao discloses the limitations of Claims 1. Verkaik further discloses: wherein executing the instructions further causes the at least one processing device, to
verify the data transfer request at each node that the data transfer request is transmitted during execution of the data transfer request. {see at least fig6, rc602, rc604, rc606, rc608, [0068]-[0070] nodes and transmission records (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111) reads on verifying) Verkaik fails to explicitly disclose verifying the data transfer request during the execution; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that such the verification of such requests are part of the execution – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Regarding Claims 5: Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao discloses the limitations of Claims 1. Verkaik further discloses:
wherein the transfer data packet comprises at least a portion of the data transfer request received by the receiving node. {see at least [0068]-[0069] transmitting data to computing node. Verkaik fails to explicitly disclose data transfer request received by the receiving node; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the data transfer request is received by the receiving node – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 18: Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10, 15. Verkaik further discloses:
updating the transfer data packet based on the transfer record; and {see at least [0057] table up-to-date; second client packet (reads on data packet) (reads on transfer records up-to-date)}
causing a transmission of the transfer data packet to the receiving node. {see at least [claim1], [claim2] data packet to the receiving node}
Regarding Claims 9, 20: Verkaik, Fall, Yanagihara, Hao discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 15. Verkaik further discloses:
causing an execution of a data transfer based on the data transfer request. {see at least fig7, rc704, [0075] the data packet is transmitted (reads implicitly on receiving. Verkaik fails to explicitly disclose the transfer based on request; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that data transfers can be based on a previous request – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240256563 A1 RAMASUBRAMANIAN; Srinath Gomathinathan et al. MECHANISM FOR BACKFILLING RECORDS DROPPED DURING TRANSFER FROM DISTRIBUTED NODE SYSTEM - A method for backfilling records dropped by a distributed node system during a transfer to an external database includes initially determining whether an attempt to transfer a data record failed or succeeded. In response to determining that the transfer succeeded, the data record is appended at its original location include a first transfer status identifier. In response to determining that the transfer failed, the data record is appended to include a second transfer status identifier and queued copy of the data record is created by copying the data record to a delayed re-try queue. The method further includes verifying that the transfer status identifier of the queued copy is identical to the transfer status identifier of a newest version of the data record within the distributed node system and, responsive to the verification, attempting a subsequent transfer of the queued copy of the data record to the external database.
US 20200287628 A1 JOHNSON; Lee James MINIATURE EMBEDDED SELF-ORGANIZED OPTICAL NETWORK - A self-organizing network of nodes communicates with uncollimated optical pulses. The nodes use low-power, unmoving, broad-beam optical interfaces, low-power processors, and communication algorithms based on timeslots within a timeframe. Nodes self-organize to form the network by pulsing detectors and sources to find neighboring nodes, confirm connections, transmit and store data, and exchange partner node identities. Two- or three-dimensional networks can thereby self-organize without external awareness of network topology, and can repair themselves when nodes move or fail. Node communication may be synchronous, thereby allowing for images of the environment status, and activation of the environment is possible via node stimulators. After forming a network, a cluster of nodes may be read out to provide data from node sensors. Implementation of selected features in the nodes' processors enable formation of networks that are unidirectional, bidirectional, serial, or complex including the formation of meshed networks with adjustable link weights capable of computation.
US 20230315538 A1 LI; WenHao RESOURCE TRANSFER INFORMATION DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM - A resource transfer information detection method and apparatus are provided. In a process of performing resource transfer path search on a resource transfer relationship graph, a current search node, a reference node that points to the current search node and that is in a current resource transfer path, and a candidate node that the current search node points to and that is in the resource transfer relationship graph are determined. A first resource transfer time is obtained between the current search node and the reference node and a second resource transfer time between the current search node and the candidate node is obtained. When the first resource transfer time and the second resource transfer time satisfy a time difference condition, the candidate node is added to the current resource transfer path to detect a target resource transfer path.
US 20240305487 A1 FLETCHER; John IMPROVED BLOCKCHAIN RELYING ON ADVANCED CONSENSUS - There is described a computer-implemented method of outputting a transmission to a second node of a blockchain, the method being performed by a first node of the blockchain, the method comprising: identifying a deposit associated with a further node of the blockchain, the deposit comprising a deposit of an asset that is substantially uncorrelated with the blockchain; and determining, based on the deposit: the influence of the further node on a consensus mechanism of the blockchain; and/or a reward for the further node; and outputting a transmission to the second node of the blockchain in dependence on the influence and/or the reward.
US 20080165692 A1 Strutt; Guenael T. et al. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR OPPORTUNISTIC DATA COMMUNICATION - A method is provided for communicating data items across one or more disjoined networks. The method comprises receiving a message including a data item information list having data item information associated with each of one or more data items stored in a node of the disjoined networks; ranking each of the data items based on each of the associated data item information; comparing each of the associated data item information of the ranked data items with a local data index information list to select one or more data items requiring updating; and sending a request for updating the selected data items.
US 5751799 A Mori; Atuko Method and device for charging during data communication time in a data switching network - A method and device for performing a charging operation during data communication in a data switching network such as a public packet exchange, a public frame relay switching network, or an ATM switching network. A charge rate is graduated in accordance with a data transmission delay time or an equipment use when an alternate route is formed because of a certain state or an equipment failure in a network. Improved service is provided. When data communication is performed in a data switching network, facility use in a network ranging from an originating node to a receiving node is examined when the occasion demands. When the originating node receives the intra-network facility use information together with transmission completion report information from the receiving node, delay time to transfer data from the originating node to the receiving node, is measured. A different charging index is set in accordance with the delay time or information regarding intra-network facility use to perform a charging operation in the originating node.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Indeed, the claimed invention includes meaningful recitations beyond generally linking the alleged mental process to a particular technological environment, such as a computer.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action has determined that
A. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers two abstract ideas categories, as defined by MPEP 2106.04-07.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 15, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
B. Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 15, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 10) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Rather, the pending claims recite a particular way of proactively detecting and resolving network incidents prior to compromise of all connected nodes of a network, in a manner that is adapted to the specific types of network components, as described in detail in the previous section.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Detecting and resolving network incidents is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application in light of Example 40 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas published by the USPTO in January 2019. Example 40 -Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data recites a method claim for adaptive monitoring of traffic data through a network appliance connected between computing devices in a network.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Second, it is not proper practice to go and find a single Court decision and use the general arguments from that decision to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter of the claimed invention in the Court decision, which in the instant situation it does not. Each application has to be considered on its own merits.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Specifically, the pending claims provide a novel solution to the foregoing shortcomings of conventional systems and provides improvements to technology by proactively detecting and resolving network incidents prior to network disruptions, in a manner that is adapted to the specific types of network components.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the necessity of the Office to provide art in a determination that the claimed elements are not a judicial exception in a 101 analysis, is unpersuasive. Applicant suggests that novelty and/or non-obviousness must be considered in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, novelty and non-obviousness (i.e., a 102/103 prior art-type analysis) have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea, or involves conventional and routine elements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear by rejecting an argument substantially similar to applicant’s in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree … that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). The prior Office action (and herein in the 101 rejection analysis, above) made a determination, for the reasons given, that the instant claims are directed as part of the “inventive concept” features/elements, which do not bring about a technological improvement to the recited elements or require the use of a special purpose computing device. Additionally, whether claimed features/elements are routine and/or conventional is just one factor in the 101 analysis and is not determinative.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “These steps are tied to a networked computing environment, involve specific data structures (transfer identifier and transfer record), and perform automated verification, security enforcement, and record-keeping operations.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Being tied to a networked computing environment is, best case, a necessary, but not a sufficient eligibility condition.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Collectively, they improve the functioning of computer networks by detecting unauthorized transfers in real time, preventing data corruption, and mitigating security risks, thereby presenting a concrete technical improvement beyond a generic network or abstract data processing.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Creating transfer records for resource values, along with authentication credentials is a BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As such, the pending claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, even more so than the claims in Example 40 deemed eligible by the Patent Office, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Therefore, the pending claims as a whole are integrated into a practical application, and are not "directed to" an abstract idea or judicial exception and is thus patent eligible.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b), as a result of interpreting claims under 35 USC § 112(f).
After further consideration, the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments. Nevertheless, Hao discloses:
wherein the transfer identifier comprises information associated with one or more associated parties of the data transfer request and a first data transfer value; {see at least [0125] device sends identifiers (reads on information associated with associated parties)}
the transfer identifier comprising a second data transfer value {see at least [0125] first threshold, first transfer value, second transfer value …}
and (ii) the second data transfer value received in the transfer data packet matches the first data transfer value of the data transfer request; {see at least [0125] values are greater or equal than threshold (reads on matching)}
Therefore, Hao discloses the emended claim limitations.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698