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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant filed the Request for Continued Examination on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-23 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are amended. Claims 3, 11, and 16 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-23 are rejected. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Applicant is of the opinion that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, moreover, set forth ‘significantly more’ than any abstract idea and thus are eligible”.
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)”.
5. Applicant is of the opinion that amended independent claim 1 limitations “receive a third event… wherein the first, second, and third events are generated asynchronously with a charge path that processes at least a portion of the transaction” … removes the claim from any potential realm of human activity, as analyzing and organizing information in complicated and voluminous databases certainly qualifies as non-human activity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II “The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas…The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points… this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings”.
6. Applicant is of the opinion that “the pending claims present additional elements that reflect ‘an improvement to … technology or [a] technical field’” and cites the amended claim 1 limitations. And Applicant concludes “that the additional elements provide a clear and concrete technical improvement over prior art systems”.
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.
7. Applicant is of the opinion that “the present claims share key characteristics with [claim 1] 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.
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.
8. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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”.
12. Claim 1 recites “processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform”. Specifically, claim 1 recites “receiving … a first event comprising first data regarding a transaction; receiving …a second event comprising second data regarding the transaction; determining … the second event comprises a trigger event; initializing … for a threshold amount of time in response to the trigger event; receiving … a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to …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 … executing … 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, second data, or the third data; populating … a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction … the portion of the set of data fields for the entry populated based on the first enriched event, and … including a plurality of entries with each entry having a data structure including the set of data fields; and discarding … at least one of the first event, the second event, or the third 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)).
13. 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”, “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” 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, 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, 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”, and “receiving, by the server system, a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to expiration of the delay timer, herein the first, second, and third events are generated asynchronously with a charge path that processes at least a portion of 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.
14. 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)).
15. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
16. 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)).
17. 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 a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store”, 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”, and “receiving a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to expiration of the delay timer, herein the first, second, and third events are generated asynchronously with a charge path that processes at least a portion of 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.
18. 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.
19. Hence, claims 10 and 15 are not patent eligible.
20. Dependent claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “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”.
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “wherein the second event comprises a gateway outcome event and the second data includes a gateway outcome of the transaction”.
Dependent claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “wherein the first, second, and third events are received … and the first enriched event is generated … and the method further comprising: receiving … a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction; generating … a second enriched event based on the fourth event, the second enriched event including second enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fourth data; and … 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 additional elements such as “a first enrichment engine of the server system”, “a second enrichment engine of the server system”, and “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” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “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”, 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)).
Dependent claim 6 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “discarding … the fourth event based on a second data retention policy, wherein the second data retention policy causes events to be discarded after a second amount of time, and the first amount of time is less than the second amount of time”. The additional element such as “the server system” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 19 further describe the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as each recites “wherein the fourth event corresponds to an event corresponding to the transaction, or a record associated with the transaction”.
Dependent claim 8 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “receiving a fifth event comprising fifth data regarding the transaction; generating a third enriched event based on the fifth event, the third enriched event including third enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fifth data; and updating the data field in the set of data fields for the entry … based on the third enriched data”. The additional element such as “the data store” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 9 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “wherein the set of data fields include a plurality of fields for structured data and at least one field for unstructured data”.
Dependent claim 12 further describe the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “wherein the first, second, and third events are received … and the first enriched event is generated … and the operations further comprising: receiving … a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction; generating … a second enriched event based on the fourth event, the second enriched event including second enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fourth data; and … 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 additional elements such as “a first enrichment engine of the server system”, “a second enrichment engine of the server system”, and “populating a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “populating 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)).
Dependent claim 13 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “discarding the fourth event based on a second data retention policy, wherein the second data retention policy causes events to be discarded after a second amount of time, and the first amount of time is less than the second amount of time”.
Dependent claim 17 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “wherein the first, second, and third events are received … and the first enriched event is generated … and … further configured to: receive … a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction; generate … a second enriched event based on the fourth event, the second enriched event including second enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fourth data; and … 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 additional elements such as “a first enrichment engine of the server system”, “the processor”, “the memory”, “a second enrichment engine of the server system”, and “populating a data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the second enriched data” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “populating 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)).
Dependent claim 18 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “wherein … is further configured to: discard the fourth event based on a second data retention policy, wherein the second data retention policy causes events to be discarded after a second amount of time, and the first amount of time is less than the second amount of time”. The additional elements such as “the processor” and “the memory” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claim 20 further describes the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as recites “wherein … further configured to: receive a fifth event comprising fifth data regarding the transaction; generate a third enriched event based on the fifth event, the third enriched event including third enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fifth data; and update the data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the third enriched data”. The additional elements such as “the processor” and “the memory” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 21, 22, and 23 further describe the abstract idea of processing transaction-related data in order to make a transaction data in a uniform, as each recites “formatting, organizing, and/or structuring, via one or more event data conditioning components, the transaction-related data within the first enriched event”.
Conclusion
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 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 US8327384B2 to Paknad et al.
27. As per claims 1, 10, and 15:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method for processing transaction-related data, the method comprising (Col.23, lines 45-48 [claim 1] “A method of detecting fraudulent activity for a financial account, comprising: listening for transaction events published to an event stream…”)
receiving, by a server system, a first event comprising first data regarding a transaction (Fig.5, item 502, 504; (Col.8, lines 27-31 “New financial transactions are initiated through one or more financial transaction processing systems 502. At predetermined stages of processing, financial transaction processing systems 502 generate transaction events 504 that are published to an event stream”, fig.6, items 602, 610, 630; col.9, lines 33-34 “These new events 630 are detected by event listener 610 of transaction service 602.”, col.12, lines 7-12 “anytime a user makes a one-time payment from their bank account, the financial transaction processing system will publish a new event with information about the payment. This information may include “to” and “from” account information, transaction type, account routing number information”
receiving, by the server system, a second event comprising second data regarding the transaction (Col.5, lines 40-43 “the entire lifecycle of a given financial transaction can be captured, from origination within a business system … to reconciliation and posting of 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”, fig.7, items 702, 710, 712, 714, 716, 718; col.10, lines 1-5 “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.”)
determining, by the server system, the second event comprises a trigger event (Fig.7, items 702, 704; col.9, lines 65-67 “As shown schematically in FIG. 7, in one exemplary embodiment different event types 702 may be published onto one or more different event streams 704”, fig.25, item 2510; col.16, lines 8-9 “This event triggers a process 2510 to enrich the scheduled transaction data”, col.18, lines 5-7 “as soon as the fraudulent charge is initiated a transaction event is triggered by a financial transaction processing system”)
populating, by the server system, a portion of a set of data fields of an entry corresponding to the transaction in a data store, the portion of the set of data fields for the entry populated based on the first enriched event, and the data store including a plurality of entries with each entry having a data structure including the set of data fields (Fig.8, items800, 801, 804, 807, 819, 820, 821, 822; col.10, lines 11-16 “FIG. 8 depicts a schematic view of a data schema, data structure, or data container that includes information about a financial transaction… data structure 800 includes a set of fields that capture the details for a given transaction event.”, 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.”, fig.23, items 2314, 2316, 2330; col.15, lines 23-26 “real time enriched data 2314 is captured in one or more datastores 2316… transaction records 2330 provide a comprehensive view of account activity”, col.26, lines 29-31 [claim 16] “wherein each financial transaction is associated with a transaction record in the system.”)
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 (Fig.3, item 108; col.6, lines 60-63 “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.6, lines 66-67 “the Windows broadcast aggregate event may be configured to be sent every hour.”, fig.4, item “Input box 46”, col.8, lines 57-58 [claim 1] “the selected aggregation profile defines a maximum time range”)
receiving, by the server system, a third event comprising third data regarding the transaction prior to expiration of the delay timer, herein the first, second, and third events are generated asynchronously with a charge path that processes at least a portion of the transaction (Fig.3, item 102, col.6, lines 29-30 “the agent 12 receives a security event from the monitor device”, col.6, lines 53-55 “locating an aggregate event matching the source IP of the security event received in block 102. If such an aggregate event exists, then its count is incremented by one”, fig.3, items 102, 104, 106; col.7, lines 19-20 “processing proceeds with the reception of the next security event at block 102.”, col.9, lines 8-11 [claim 4] “the selected aggregation profile enumerates one or more event fields whose values must match for two events to be considered satisfactorily similar for aggregation.”)
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 60-61 “aggregate events are provided to the manager 14 upon the expiration of some time interval”, col.8, lines 65-67 [claim 1] “transmitting the aggregate event when a time range of the events represented by the aggregate event exceeds the maximum time range.”), 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 (Col.5, lines 56-59 “an aggregation profile 34 defines the aggregation parameters … an aggregation profile can define the event fields that must be the same”, col.5, lines 61-63 “an aggregation profile also contains a Boolean condition that the event must satisfy (i.e., the condition evaluates to true) in order for that event to be aggregated”, col.6, lines 19-21 “all other fields are discarded as irrelevant. In another embodiment, all fields except for start and end time are discarded”, col.9, lines 12-14 [claim 5] “the selected aggregation profile enumerates one or more event fields preserved by the aggregate event.”)
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 receiving transaction events in the event stream from a plurality of financial transaction processing systems, communicate with a data enrichment service to create enriched transaction data, and publish enriched transaction events (‘119, col.2, lines 8-11) for providing event aggregation technique such as accumulating events matching criteria during a time window, then generating a composite/aggregate event upon timer expiry, in order to reduce processing overhead and enable enrichment of related transaction events (‘782, col.5, lines 61-63; col.6, lines 53-55; col.6, lines 60-61, col.8, lines 65-67).
Nor Hendry et al., neither Dash et al. disclose, however, Paknad et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
discarding, by the server system, at least one of the first event, the second event, or the third 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 (Col.6, lines 59-64 “a retention schedule is a rule telling how long the document (record, piece of information) should be retained in the data source (retention time), what the triggering event is after which the retention period starts to be counted, and what needs to be done when the retention period is due… ‘the document must be DELETED 5 YEARS after EMPLOYEE TERMINATION’ or ‘the document must be ARCHIVED 30 DAYS after DOCUMENT CREATION’.”, col.4, lines 14-20 “The Enterprise Retention Management System orchestrates the propagation of business events from event producers to event consumers… enforces retention policies by delaying event propagation to the event consumers”, fig.5 “Disposition requests are forwarded to consumers once the retention period is over”; col.10, lines 2-5 “ERM needs to send a disposition command right in time when the data needs to be deleted. The time is calculated based on a retention policy stored in ERM.”, col.18, lines 26-29 [claim 4] “wherein the Enterprise Retention Management System stores at least one retention schedule … wherein the at least one retention schedule contains information relating to the rules regarding the data's retention.”, col.19, lines 41-44 [claim 17] “managing a retention schedule within the Enterprise Retention Management System, wherein propagating the data disposition request … comprises sending a delete 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 methods for managing the retention and disposition of data by an Enterprise Retention Management System, wherein the retention and disposition of data is driven by business events of Paknad et al. (‘384, col.2, lines 9-11) with teaching of Hendry et al. for receiving transaction events in the event stream from a plurality of financial transaction processing systems, communicate with a data enrichment service to create enriched transaction data, and publish enriched transaction events (‘119, col.2, lines 8-11) for operating enterprise data management contexts where data retention and lifecycle management a key core and providing structured retention schedule framework in order to automate the disposition of raw events after enrichment and aggregation, reducing storage costs and ensuring regulatory compliance (‘384, fig.5; col.6, lines 59-64; col.10, lines 2-5; col.19, lines 41-44).
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)”)
28. 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 (Fig.5, items 502, 504; col.8, lines 28-31 “At predetermined stages of processing, financial transaction processing systems 502 generate transaction events 504 that are published to an event stream.”, fig.7, item 712; col.10, lines 2-3 “an authorization event type 712 (for processing authorization information for a transaction)”, fig.6, items 610, 620, 650; col.9, lines 46-49 “event producer 620 publishes processing status events 650 … these can include processed complete events and processed expired events.”, col.12, lines 29-32 “the bank's middleware system will publish a new event indicating that the transaction has been reconciled and report the result (complete or expired)”, fig.34, items 3402, 3430, 3432; col.19, lines 22-26 “A fraud detection system 3430 detects the enriched data event and analyzes a batch of recently enriched transaction data including charge 3402. If fraudulent activity is detected, fraud detection system 3430 may publish a fraud detection event 3432.”, fig.33, item 3310; col.18, lines 42-44 “fraud detection system 3310 can publish fraud detection events to one or more event streams.”, fig.35, items 3504, 3506; col.19, lines 50-52 “an analytics engine 3504 … perform … behavior based analytics. The output could include … patterns and reports 3506.”)
29. As per claim 4:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the second event comprises a gateway outcome event and the second data includes a gateway outcome of the transaction (Fig.7, items 702, 712; col.10, lines 1-3 “event types 702 include… an authorization event type 712 (for processing authorization information for a transaction)”, fig.6, item 620, 650; col.9, lines 46-49 “event producer 620 publishes processing status events 650 … these can include processed complete events and processed expired events.”, col.12, lines 29-32 “the bank's middleware system will publish a new event indicating that the transaction has been reconciled and report the result (complete or expired).”, col.18, lines 5-7 “as soon as the fraudulent charge is initiated a transaction event is triggered by a financial transaction processing system”)
30. As per claims 5, 12, and 17:
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 and the first enriched event is generated by the first enrichment engine, and the method further comprising (Fig.6, item 602; col.9, lines 4-7 “Transaction service 602 comprises various components and processes responsible for listening to an event stream, enriching transaction data, maintaining a historical log of activity”, fig.6, items 614, 616; col.9, 34-37 “New manual or scheduled transaction data can then be enriched using data enrichment API 614. This enriched data may be stored locally in database 616.”, fig.6, items 602, 660; col.9, lines 53-54 “enriched manual and scheduled transaction data 660 may be obtained from transaction service 602”)
receiving, by a second enrichment engine of the server system, a fourth event comprising fourth data regarding the transaction (Fig.6, item 604; col.9, lines 18-22 “Middleware system 604 includes various components and processes responsible for storing enriched data for pending and processed transactions… Middleware system 604 may include an event producer 620 and an event listener 622”, fig.6, items 604, 662; col.9, lines 55-56 “enriched pending and processed transaction data 662 can be obtained from middleware system 604.”)
generating, by the second enrichment engine of the server system, a second enriched event based on the fourth event, the second enriched event including second enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fourth data (Fig.6, items 604, 620, 622, 624, 626; col.9, lines 18-26 “Middleware system 604 includes various components and processes responsible for storing enriched data for pending and processed transactions … 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.”)
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, 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 (Fig.8, item 800; col.10, lines 18-22 “a credit card processor could publish a new event for creating a new scheduled transaction… the processor could send a copy of data structure 800 with the relevant information filled in.”, col.10, lines 27-29 “a consumer of the event may construct a new data structure (or modify an existing data structure) based on information passed in the event”col.12, lines 1-3 “transaction service 602 … powers manual payments initiated through a user's bank account.”, col.12, lines 10-14 “This information may include … transaction type, account routing number information … other relevant event data, including any relevant fields from data structure 800”)
31. As per claims 6, 13, and 18:
Nor Hendry et al., neither Dash et al. disclose, however, Paknad et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
discarding, by the server system, the fourth event based on a second data retention policy, wherein the second data retention policy causes events to be discarded after a second amount of time, and the first amount of time is less than the second amount of time (Col.6, lines 59-64 “a retention schedule is a rule telling how long the document (record, piece of information) should be retained in the data source (retention time), what the triggering event is after which the retention period starts to be counted, and what needs to be done when the retention period is due… ‘the document must be DELETED 5 YEARS after EMPLOYEE TERMINATION’ or ‘the document must be ARCHIVED 30 DAYS after DOCUMENT CREATION’.”, fig.5 “Disposition requests are forwarded to consumers once the retention period is over”; col.10, lines 2-5 “ERM needs to send a disposition command right in time when the data needs to be deleted. The time is calculated based on a retention policy stored in ERM.”, col.18, lines 26-29 [claim 4] “wherein the Enterprise Retention Management System stores at least one retention schedule … wherein the at least one retention schedule contains information relating to the rules regarding the data's retention.”, col.19, lines 41-44 [claim 17] “managing a retention schedule within the Enterprise Retention Management System, wherein propagating the data disposition request … comprises sending a delete 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 methods for managing the retention and disposition of data by an Enterprise Retention Management System, wherein the retention and disposition of data is driven by business events of Paknad et al. (‘384, col.2, lines 9-11) with teaching of Hendry et al. for receiving transaction events in the event stream from a plurality of financial transaction processing systems, communicate with a data enrichment service to create enriched transaction data, and publish enriched transaction events (‘119, col.2, lines 8-11) for operating enterprise data management contexts where data retention and lifecycle management a key core and providing structured retention schedule framework in order to automate the disposition of raw events after enrichment and aggregation, reducing storage costs and ensuring regulatory compliance (‘384, fig.5; col.6, lines 59-64; col.10, lines 2-5; col.19, lines 41-44).
32. As per claims 7, 14, and 19:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the fourth event corresponds to an event corresponding to the transaction, a record associated with the transaction (Col.10, lines 11-14 “FIG. 8 depicts a schematic view of a data schema, data structure, or data container that includes information about a financial transaction. In some cases, such a schema could be referred to as a transaction record”, fig.8, item 800; col.10, lines 16-18 “each event incorporates a copy of data structure 800 and/or the relevant parts of data structure 800.”, col.10, lines 27-29 “a consumer of the event may construct a new data structure (or modify an existing data structure) based on information passed in the event”, col.11, lines 50-53 “FIGS. 9-17 are tables providing a list of exemplary events that can be published to an event stream indicating a change in the state of a particular transaction record (for example, data structure 800 in FIG. 8)”, col.26, lines 29-31 [claim 16] “each financial transaction is associated with a transaction record in the system”)
33. As per claims 8 and 20:
Hendry et al. discloses the following limitations:
receiving a fifth event comprising fifth 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”)
generating a third enriched event based on the fifth event, the third enriched event including third enriched data comprising at least a portion of the fifth data (Fig.23, item 2312; col.15, lines 20-22 “In response to these events, transaction data can be enriched using data enrichment services 2312.”, fig.26, items 2620, 2622, 2626; col.16, lines 39-44 “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. Once the data has been enriched, management and storage system 2620 publishes an enriched data event 2626 to an event stream.”)
updating the data field in the set of data fields for the entry in the data store based on the third 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, lines 50-53 “FIGS. 9-17 are tables providing a list of exemplary events”, fig.23, items 2314, 2316; col.15, lines 22-23 “real time enriched data 2314 is captured in one or more datastores 2316”)
34. 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 and at least one field for unstructured data (Fig.8, items 801, 802, 803, 804, 807, 819; col.10, lines 34-35 “each data field is associated with a predetermined domain of possible values.”, 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.”)
35. As per claims 21, 22, and 23:
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 (Fig.28, item 2802; col.17, lines 22-25 “Enriched financial transaction data 2802 may be clean (including removing simple errors and applying a consistent format), categorized, authenticated and/or verified.”, col/line 23/66-24/2 [claim 1] “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” fig.3, items ; col.7, lines 22-24 “data enrichment services 130 can facilitate data cleaning 302, categorizing 304, classifying 306, authentication 308, and verification 310”, col.10, lines 27-29 “a consumer of the event may construct a new data structure (or modify an existing data structure) based on information passed in the event”)
Conclusion
36. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
37. 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 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692