DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
2. Applicant filed the amendment on 06/18/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-23 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 15, and 21 are amended. Claim 5 is canceled.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims recite “The computer-implemented method of claim 5…”, wherein claim 5 is canceled.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. In the instant case, claims 1, 10, and 15 are directed to a “method, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and system for handling transaction-related data”.
7. Claim 1 recites “processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform”. Specifically, claim 1 recites (an abstract idea is emphasized in bold) “receiving, by a server system, a first event comprising first data regarding a transaction;
receiving, by the server system, a second event comprising second data regarding the transaction;
determining, by the server system, the second event comprises a trigger event;
initializing, by the server system, a delay timer for a threshold amount of time in response to the trigger event;
receiving, by a first enrichment engine of the server system, a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to expiration of the delay timer, wherein the first, second, and third events are generated asynchronously with a charge path that processes at least a portion of the transaction;
in response to expiration of the delay timer, executing, by the server system, a set of rules on the first, second, and third events to generate a first enriched event, the set of rules determining data to include in and data to exclude from the first enriched event, and the first enriched event including first filtered data comprising at least a portion of the first data, the second data, or the third data;
receiving, by a second enrichment engine of the server system, a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction;
generating, by the second enrichment engine of the server system, a second enriched event based on the fourth event, the second enriched event comprising second enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fourth data;
populating, by the server system, (i) a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store based on the first enriched event, and (ii) a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data, wherein the data field is separate from the portion of the set of data fields for the entry populated based on the first filtered data, the data store including a plurality of entries with each entry having a data structure including the set of data fields; and
discarding, by the server system, at least one of the first event, the second event, the third event, or the fourth event based on a first data retention policy, wherein the first data retention policy causes events to be discarded after a first amount of time”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
8. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claim 1 such as “a server system”, “a delay timer”, “a first enrichment engine”, “expiration of the delay timer”, “a second enrichment engine”, and “populating, by the server system, (i) a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store based on the first enriched event, and (ii) a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “populating, by the server system, (i) a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store based on the first enriched event, and (ii) a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data”, this is no more than using a computer to fill out a form. Which does not provide a practical application as it represents using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea such as performing an economic or other task, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Also, with respect to “receiving, by a server system, a first event comprising first data regarding a transaction”, “receiving, by the server system, a second event comprising second data regarding the transaction”, “receiving, by a first enrichment engine of the server system, a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to expiration of the delay timer”, and “receiving, by a second enrichment engine of the server system, a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform.
9. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform using computer technology. Therefore, as the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, they cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
10. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
11. Claims 10 and 15 also recite “processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
12. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claims 10 and 15 such as “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a server system”, “a processor”, “a delay timer”, “expiration of the delay timer”, “populating (i) a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store based on the first enriched event, and (ii) a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data”, and “a memory” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “populating a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store”, this is no more than using a computer to fill out a form. Which does not provide a practical application as it represents using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea such as performing an economic or other task (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Also, with respect to “receiving a first event comprising first data regarding a transaction”, “receiving a second event comprising second data regarding the transaction”, “receiving a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to expiration of the delay timer”, and “receiving a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform.
13. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
14. Hence, claims 10 and 15 are not patent eligible.
15. The following dependent claims recent additional elements not addressed above:
claims 12 and 17 recite “a first enrichment engine of the server system” and “a second enrichment engine of the server system”.
When considered individually, and as a whole, each of these additional elements amount to merely "apply it", as they are merely applying the abstract idea to the technical environment of the first enrichment engine of the server system and the second enrichment engine of the server system.
16. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-23 merely expand upon the abstract ideas of the independent claims and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 10, and 15 respectively.
Conclusion of 35 USC §101
17. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
18. Accordingly, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The factual inquiries 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.
22. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11315119B1 to Hendry et al. in view of US8099782B1 to Dash et al. and US20180268167A1 to Alberton et al.
23. As per claims 1:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method for processing transaction-related data, the method comprising (col.1, lines 7-9 “The present disclosure generally relates financial accounts, and in particular to a system and method for managing financial transaction information.”, col.22, lines 4-8 “The processes and methods of the embodiments described in this detailed description and shown in the figures can be implemented using any kind of computing system having one or more central processing units (CPUs) and/or graphics processing units (GPUs).”)
receiving, by a server system, a first event comprising first data regarding a transaction (col.8, lines 28-33 “At predetermined stages of processing, financial transaction processing systems 502 generate transaction events 504 that are published to an event stream. These events are consumed by one or more components within management and storage systems 506.”, col.9, lines 10-13 “Transaction service 602 includes an event listener 610 for listening to events published on an event stream and an event producer 612 for publishing events to an events stream.”, col.10, lines 14-16 “In this case, data structure 800 includes a set of fields that capture the details for a given transaction event.”)
receiving, by the server system, a second event comprising second data regarding the transaction (col.12, lines 16-20 “If the state of this transaction changes, the appropriate system will send a new transaction event, and the system storing the new record can update the record appropriately based on information from the transaction event.”, col.13, lines 21-25 “Using the architecture of FIG. 19, a single transaction may be processed by multiple different processing systems which can utilize the event stream to indicate when a financial transaction has been processed by one system and is ready for processing by another system.”)
determining, by the server system, the second event comprises a trigger event (col.16, lines 4-9 “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 25, which reflects an event driven architecture, as soon as a new scheduled payment is entered by a customer, the web bill pay system 2502 publishes a new event with the scheduled payment information. This event triggers a process 2510 to enrich the scheduled transaction data.”, col.16, lines 38-42 “This event is detected by a management and storage system 2620. Management and storage system 2620 may then make a request to enrich the transaction data associated with the transaction event using data enrichment services 2622.”)
[receiving] … wherein the first, second, and third events are generated asynchronously with a charge path that processes at least a portion of the transaction (col.16, lines 35-38 “As it preforms its usual processing tasks, credit card processing system 2604 also publishes a new transaction event 2610 to an event stream.”, col.7, lines 9-12 “In one embodiment, events produced within event stream system 120 are written to a log, and event consumers can read from any part of the stream in the event log.”)
[in response] … the set of rules determining data to include in and data to exclude from the first enriched event (col/line 23/66-24/2 “the enriched transaction data being converted from a raw format into an enriched format by being cleaned by removing simple errors and applying a consistent format and being categorized”, col.10, lines 16-18 “In some cases, each event incorporates a copy of data structure 800 and/or the relevant parts of data structure 800.”), and the first enriched event including first filtered data comprising at least a portion of the first data, the second data, or the third data (col.16, lines 46-52 “Upon receiving enriched data event 2626, push notification service 2630 may send a message 2642 including enriched data to a user device 2640. In this case, the message includes information about the new grocery purchase. Specifically, the message includes the category of the purchase (“grocery”) and an amount”)
receiving, by a second enrichment engine of the server system, a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction (col.9, lines 38-41 “Specifically, event producer 612 publishes enrichment events 640, which are detected by event listener 622 of middleware system 604.”, col.9, lines 18-26 “Middleware system 604 includes various components and processes responsible for storing enriched data for pending and processed transactions across various baking systems. Middleware system 604 may include an event producer 620 and an event listener 622. Middleware system 604 may also include a reconciliation API 624 that communicates with reconciliation systems 626 to reconcile processed transactions with scheduled transactions, manual transactions and pending transactions.”)
generating, by the second enrichment engine of the server system, a second enriched event based on the fourth event (col.9, lines 42-48 “Using reconciliation API 624, reconciliation of scheduled, manual, and pending transactions are performed. Information about transactions that have been completed (for example, posted) or expired can be sent back to transaction service 602. Specifically, event producer 620 publishes processing status events 650 that are received by event listener 610.”), the second enriched event comprising second enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fourth data (col.9, lines 48-49 “In some cases, these can include processed complete events and processed expired events.”, col.12, lines 28-32 “Thus, anytime a recurring payment is reconciled with pending/posted transactions, the bank's middleware system will publish a new event indicating that the transaction has been reconciled and report the result (complete or expired).”)
populating, by the server system, (i) a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store based on the first enriched event (col.9, lines 38-42 “Specifically, event producer 612 publishes enrichment events 640, which are detected by event listener 622 of middleware system 604. This enriched data may be stored in one or more of databases 628.”, col.12, lines 63-65 “The complete record, including a history of all changes made to the record, is stored in transaction records 1820 in datastore 1812.”), and (ii) a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data (col.10, lines 30-33 “In other cases, new data structures may be created using some events and those same data structures could be modified by other events.”, col.11, lines10-12 “Data structure 800 may also include a ‘Status’ data field 819 that allows systems to record the status of a transaction, for example either ‘pending’ or ‘processed.’”), wherein the data field is separate from the portion of the set of data fields for the entry populated based on the first filtered data (col.10, lines 47-49 “Data structure 800 also includes: an ‘amount’ data field 807 that allows systems to record the amount of money being transacted.”, col.11, lines 16-19 “Specifically, data structure 800 includes a ‘Posted Date’ data field 820, a ‘Settlement Date’ data field 821, a ‘Time to Live’ data field 822, and a ‘Time to Display’ data field 823.”), the data store including a plurality of entries with each entry having a data structure including the set of data fields (col.11, lines 39-42 “Data structure 800 may comprise a record of a particular financial transaction. Multiple records may be collected into a single table. The table may be stored within a database, or in a distributed format across multiple systems.”)
Hendry et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Dash et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
initializing, by the server system, a delay timer for a threshold amount of time in response to the trigger event (col.6, lines 60-63 “In one embodiment, aggregate events are provided to the manager 14 upon the expiration of some time interval, the reaching of a certain maximum count number, or a combination of these two criteria.”, col.8, lines 14-18 “In one embodiment, a max time (time interval after which aggregate event is sent) and/or max count (maximum raw events to be represented by aggregate event) can also be specified using input boxes 46 and 48 of the editor respectively.”, col.6, lines 21-25 “In one embodiment, the start time of an aggregate event is the start time of the earliest aggregated event and the end time of an aggregate event is the end time of the latest aggregated event being represented by the aggregate event.”)
receiving, by a first enrichment engine of the server system, a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to expiration of the delay timer (col.5, lines 45-47 “In one embodiment, an agent aggregate module 32 generates aggregate events from the security events stored in the input buffer 30.”, col.6, lines 54-56 “If such an aggregate event exists, then its count is incremented by one to represent the new Windows broadcast event.”)
in response to expiration of the delay timer, executing, by the server system, a set of rules on the first, second, and third events to generate a first enriched event … (col.6, lines 65-66 “A time out means that when the time interval expires, the aggregate event is sent.”, col.7, lines 14-16 “However, if a cutoff condition is reached, those aggregate events that satisfy the cutoff conditions are output in block 110.”, col.6, lines 51-52 “In block 106, the aggregation profile is used to perform the aggregation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a device interface that receives a security event from a network device, a plurality of aggregation profiles, and an aggregate module to select one of the plurality of aggregation profile of Dash et al. (‘782, col.2, lines 30-33) with teaching of Hendry et al. for managing financial transaction information (‘119, col.1, lines 8-9) for enhancing the method for fraud detection of Hendry et al. with features of starting time interval when the aggregate is created in response to the triggering event and expiring when the interval elapses, providing a delay timer for a threshold amount of time initialized in response to the trigger event and representing the received completed events in response to expiration of the time interval (‘782, col.5, lines 45-47; col.6, lines 21-25, 54-56, 60-63, 65-66; col.7, lines 14-16).
Neither Hendry et al. nor Dash et al. disclose, however, Alberton et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
discarding, by the server system, at least one of the first event, the second event, the third event, or the fourth event based on a first data retention policy ([0117] “… Events 223 are purged from the indexes 278 in accordance with the retention policy…”), wherein the first data retention policy causes events to be discarded after a first amount of time ([0115] “…To handle the large volume of data, the resulting anonymized events 222 are only retained at the anonymized content processing stage 210 b for a limited interval of time, for example 30 days or so…”, [0202] “In addition, each of user events is purged from the index upon expiry of a retention period for that user event (e.g. ˜30 days from a timing of that event), whereby user events are not counted once purged…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a device interface that receives a security event from a network device, a plurality of aggregation profiles, and an aggregate module to select one of the plurality of aggregation profile of Dash et al. (‘782, col.2, lines 30-33) and a system for processing events of Alberton et al. (‘167, [0001]) with teaching of Hendry et al. for managing financial transaction information (‘119, col.1, lines 8-9) for enhancing the method for fraud detection of Hendry et al. with features of enforcing a retention policy that discarding events upon expiring of a period of about 30 days from the event or after a first amount of time (‘167, [0115], [0117], [0202]).
As per claim 10 Hendry et al. additionally discloses the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium (col.22, lines 22-24 “The non-transitory computer readable medium may include any suitable computer readable medium, such as a memory, such as RAM, ROM”)
a server system (col.22, lines 15-17 “Examples of computing systems and devices include, but are not limited to: servers, cellular phones, smart phones, tablet computers”
a processor (col.22, lines 6-8 “computing system having one or more central processing units (CPUs) and/or graphics processing units (GPUs)”)
As per claim 15 Hendry et al. additionally discloses the following limitations:
a server system (col.22, lines 15-17 “Examples of computing systems and devices include, but are not limited to: servers, cellular phones, smart phones, tablet computers”
a memory (col.22, lines 12-14 “computing systems including read only memory (ROM) and/or random access memory (RAM)”)
a processor (col.22, lines 6-8 “computing system having one or more central processing units (CPUs) and/or graphics processing units (GPUs)”)
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
24. As per claim 2:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first, second, and third events correspond to one or more of a gateway outcome of the transaction and analysis results of the transaction (col/line 9/67-10/5 “In this example, event types 702 include a manual event type 710, an authorization event type 712 (for processing authorization information for a transaction), a one-time scheduled event type 714, a recurring scheduled event type 716 and a forecasted event type 718.”, col.19, lines 24-26 “If fraudulent activity is detected, fraud detection system 3430 may publish a fraud detection event 3432.”)
25. As per claim 4:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the second event comprises a gateway outcome event (col/line 9/67-10/5 “In this example, event types 702 include a manual event type 710, an authorization event type 712 (for processing authorization information for a transaction), a one-time scheduled event type 714, a recurring scheduled event type 716 and a forecasted event type 718.”, col.8, lines 64-66 “The term pending transactions may also encompass authorizations (such as credit card authorization transactions).”) and the second data includes a gateway outcome of the transaction (col/line 9/67-10/5 “In this example, event types 702 include a manual event type 710, an authorization event type 712 (for processing authorization information for a transaction), a one-time scheduled event type 714, a recurring scheduled event type 716 and a forecasted event type 718.”)
26. As per claim 6:
Neither Hendry et al. nor Dash et al. disclose, however, Alberton et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
discarding, by the server system, the fourth event based on a second data retention policy ([0117] “… Events 223 are purged from the indexes 278 in accordance with the retention policy…”, [0116] “Alternatively, rather than a blanket retention rule of this nature, the amount of time for which events 222 are retained may be dependent on the events themselves…”), wherein the second data retention policy causes events to be discarded after a second amount of time ([0116] “…For example events relating to more popular content may be retained for longer. This allows older information for more popular content to be released upon request.”), and the first amount of time is less than the second amount of time ([0115] “…To handle the large volume of data, the resulting anonymized events 222 are only retained at the anonymized content processing stage 210 b for a limited interval of time, for example 30 days or so…”, [0116] “…For example events relating to more popular content may be retained for longer. This allows older information for more popular content to be released upon request.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a device interface that receives a security event from a network device, a plurality of aggregation profiles, and an aggregate module to select one of the plurality of aggregation profile of Dash et al. (‘782, col.2, lines 30-33) and a system for processing events of Alberton et al. (‘167, [0001]) with teaching of Hendry et al. for managing financial transaction information (‘119, col.1, lines 8-9) for enhancing the method for fraud detection of Hendry et al. with features of enforcing another retention policy that can apply different retention rules to different events for discarding events upon expiring of a period of about 30 days from the event or after a first amount of time wherein events retained for longer under the event-dependent rule (‘167, [0115], [0116], [0117]).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
27. As per claim 7:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the fourth event corresponds to an event corresponding to the transaction, or a record associated with the transaction (Col.9, lines 37-41 “Additionally, transaction service 602 can alert middleware system 604 about newly enriched data. Specifically, event producer 612 publishes enrichment events 640, which are detected by event listener 622 of middleware system 604.”)
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
28. As per claim 8:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
receiving a fifth event comprising fifth data regarding the transaction (Col.9, lines 46-48 “Specifically, event producer 620 publishes processing status events 650 that are received by event listener 610.”)
updating the data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the third enriched data (col.11, lines 16-20 “If the state of this transaction changes, the appropriate system will send a new transaction event, and the system storing the new record can update the record appropriately based on information from the transaction event.”, col.11, lines 10-12 “Data structure 800 may also include a ‘Status’ data field 819 that allows systems to record the status of a transaction, for example either ‘pending’ or ‘processed.’”)
Neither Hendry et al. nor Dash et al. disclose, however, Alberton et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
generating a third enriched event based on the fifth event ([0117] “…That is, for every one of the events 222, the augmentation component adds, to that event 222, a copy of the user attributes associated with the user identifier in that event 222…”), the third enriched event including third enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fifth data ([0117] “…The augmentation component augments the events 224 with the user attributes 226. That is, for every one of the events 222, the augmentation component adds, to that event 222, a copy of the user attributes associated with the user identifier in that event 222…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a device interface that receives a security event from a network device, a plurality of aggregation profiles, and an aggregate module to select one of the plurality of aggregation profile of Dash et al. (‘782, col.2, lines 30-33) and a system for processing events of Alberton et al. (‘167, [0001]) with teaching of Hendry et al. for managing financial transaction information (‘119, col.1, lines 8-9) for enhancing the method for fraud detection of Hendry et al. with features of that generating a further enriched event based on the previous event including the engagement event, and wherein the augmented engagement event comprises the original engagement event data plus the added attributes (‘167, [0117]).
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
29. As per claim 9:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the set of data fields include a plurality of fields for structured data (col.10, lines 34-43 “As seen in FIG. 8, each data field is associated with a predetermined domain of possible values. Data structure 800 includes: a ‘To Account’ data field 801 that allows systems to record the destination account for a given transaction; a ‘To Account Routing Number’ data field 802 that allows systems to record a particular routing number for the destination account; a ‘To Account Type’ data field 803 that allows systems to record an account type for the destination account (such as Checking, Savings, Credit Card Broker, etc.).”) and at least one field for unstructured data (col.10, lines 60-63 “Data structure 800 may also include a ‘Memo field’ data field 813 that allows systems to record any information in the memo field of a funds transfer or bill pay transaction.”)
30. As per claim 12:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first, second, and third events are received by a first enrichment engine of the server system (col.9, lines 10-13 “Transaction service 602 includes an event listener 610 for listening to events published on an event stream and an event producer 612 for publishing events to an events stream.”, col.9, lines 33-36 “These new events 630 are detected by event listener 610 of transaction service 602. New manual or scheduled transaction data can then be enriched using data enrichment API 614.”), and the first enriched event is generated by the first enrichment engine (col.9, lines 38-41 “Specifically, event producer 612 publishes enrichment events 640, which are detected by event listener 622 of middleware system 604.”)
receiving, by a second enrichment engine of the server system, a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction (col.9, lines 38-41 “Specifically, event producer 612 publishes enrichment events 640, which are detected by event listener 622 of middleware system 604.”, col.9, lines 18-26 “Middleware system 604 includes various components and processes responsible for storing enriched data for pending and processed transactions across various baking systems. Middleware system 604 may include an event producer 620 and an event listener 622. Middleware system 604 may also include a reconciliation API 624 that communicates with reconciliation systems 626 to reconcile processed transactions with scheduled transactions, manual transactions and pending transactions.”)
generating, by the second enrichment engine of the server system, a second enriched event based on the fourth event (col.9, lines 42-48 “Using reconciliation API 624, reconciliation of scheduled, manual, and pending transactions are performed. Information about transactions that have been completed (for example, posted) or expired can be sent back to transaction service 602. Specifically, event producer 620 publishes processing status events 650 that are received by event listener 610.”), the second enriched event including second enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fourth data (col.9, lines 48-49 “In some cases, these can include processed complete events and processed expired events.”, col.12, lines 28-32 “Thus, anytime a recurring payment is reconciled with pending/posted transactions, the bank's middleware system will publish a new event indicating that the transaction has been reconciled and report the result (complete or expired).”)
populating, by the server system, a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data (col.10, lines 30-33 “In other cases, new data structures may be created using some events and those same data structures could be modified by other events.”, col.11, lines10-12 “Data structure 800 may also include a ‘Status’ data field 819 that allows systems to record the status of a transaction, for example either ‘pending’ or ‘processed.’”), wherein the data field is separate from the portion of the set of data fields for the entry populated based on the first filtered data (col.10, lines 47-49 “Data structure 800 also includes: an ‘amount’ data field 807 that allows systems to record the amount of money being transacted.”, col.11, lines 16-19 “Specifically, data structure 800 includes a ‘Posted Date’ data field 820, a ‘Settlement Date’ data field 821, a ‘Time to Live’ data field 822, and a ‘Time to Display’ data field 823.”)
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 12.
31. As per claim 21:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
formatting, organizing, and/or structuring, via one or more event data conditioning components, the transaction-related data within the first enriched event (col.7, lines 21-24 “As seen in FIG. 3, data enrichment services 130 can facilitate data cleaning 302, categorizing 304, classifying 306, authentication 308, and verification 310.”, col/line 23/66-24/2 “the enriched transaction data being converted from a raw format into an enriched format by being cleaned by removing simple errors and applying a consistent format and being categorized”)
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
32. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-23 are rejected.
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
33. Applicant’s arguments toward 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Amended independent claim 1 do not have additional elements that could lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
34. Applicant is of the opinion that the amended claim 1is not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims as a whole are directed to processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial or legal interactions)”.
35. Applicant is of the opinion “that the additional elements provide a clear and concrete technical improvement over prior art systems. Specifically, by ‘introducing a delay that causes an enrichment engine to wait until all or a majority of events have been emitted before generating and emitting an enriched event,’ the system ‘can reduce the number of enriched events that are generated and the processing of those events (e.g., to determine whether the transaction record table needs to be updated to include transaction-related data in the enriched event)’”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mentioned above the claim features are performed by using the computer components. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
36. Applicant reiterates the opinion that “the present claims share key characteristics with Example 40 that render them patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1, and Prong 2. Like Example 40, which addresses improving computer functionality by reducing latency in a networked environment, the present claims solve a technical problem: namely, inefficiencies in processing voluminous transaction-related events”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner stands on his previous position and states again: Claim 1 of Example 40 is directed to adaptive monitoring of network packet traffic and therefore operates at the network packet level. Applicant's invention, on the other hand, operates at the application level. Collecting traffic data through a network appliance is not comparable to processing transaction event data (e.g., refunds or disputes). Example 40 requires network visibility tools for close monitoring of network issues. In contrast, applicant's claims constitute Certain Methods of Human Activity that do not require network analysis tools but can be carried out with a server system or non-transitory computer readable storage medium or, moreover, under broadest reasonable interpretation, only three events - first event comprising first data, second event comprising second data, and third even comprising third data - are required to invoke the claims that arguably involve negligible application processing needs or even network load. For the above reasons, Example 40 is inapplicable here.
37. Applicant is of the opinion that “the claims amount to ‘significantly more’ than any abstract idea because the claims recite ‘additional elements’ that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional”. Further, Applicant continues that “[the] claims, like those in DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), ‘specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.’ Similarly, the claims do not merely apply a generic concept or organize human activity; rather, they recite specific technical mechanisms, including asynchronous event generation, retention policies, and enrichment engine delays, that alter the conventional sequence of data processing operations. These features improve system responsiveness and scalability, which is a technical solution to a technical problem, not an abstract idea”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the reasons already discussed above – the additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. As per the identification of the “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the rejection properly identifies the elements which are recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, including a server system, a delay timer, expiration of the delay timer, and populating, by the server system, a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the “additional elements” have been identified and the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Under Step 2B, the additional elements have been evaluated and do not amount to “significantly more”. Note that Revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. The identification of the additional elements in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two is carried over as well as the conclusion from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f), and (h).
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claims are akin to DDR, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Unlike DDR, where the click of a hyperlink would cause an e-commerce website to lose a customer to a rival e-commerce website, there is no such business or technical problem confronting the user. Applicant’s invention does not set out to solve any specific business or technological challenges comparable to that in DDR. There is no risk of losing business to a rival because of a mouse click. The claimed invention does not involve internet browsing and its associated challenges. Nor do the claims describe any technical solutions to any problem. Receiving, enriching, delaying, populating, and discarding transaction data is not even remotely comparable to navigating a merchant website. Hence, the DDR analogy does not apply here.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Rejection under 35 USC § 103
38. Applicant argues that prior art references do not teach, suggest, or otherwise provide amended claims 1, 10, and 15 limitations.
Applicant arguments are no longer applicable because they are moot in light of the revised rejection.
Conclusion
39. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US8327384B2 – Paknad et al. – Discloses systems, methods and apparatuses for managing the retention and disposition of data for an event consumer using an Enterprise Retention Management System wherein the management is driven by business events.
US20200242509A1 – Clow, II et al. – Discloses a system for event data extraction for real-time event modeling and resolution may be configured for: processing a plurality of event requests associated with a first user, wherein processing each event request comprises: identifying an event content field in the event request, extracting event data from the event content field.
US20160171399A1 – Santhanam et al. – Discloses a system that processes trade events, wherein the system receives events associated with a supply chain financial orchestration flow, where a supply chain financial orchestration flow defines a trade relationship between a first entity and a second entity.
US20220374898A1 – Kaitha et al. – Discloses a methods and systems for facilitating payment transactions to delivery agents, wherein the method performed by a server system includes obtaining order related data associated with an order placed by a customer with a merchant and includes determining whether a payment transaction amount is within one or more transaction threshold limits or not.
40. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
41. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights