DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 12/18/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
Claims 1, 22 are amended
Claims 11, 32 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-10, 12-31, 33-42 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12-31, 33-42 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-21 are directed to a computer implemented method and claims 22-42 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 22) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 22) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer implemented method:
[B] intercepting, by a processor coupled with a message producer via an electronic communications network, an electronic message communicated to a first transaction processing system coupled with the processor for processing thereby prior to receipt by the first transaction processing system, the transaction processing system configured to
[C] process each message upon receipt thereby and generate a result indicative thereof to be communicated to a recipient device;
[D] contemporaneously forwarding, by the processor, a first copy of the electronic message to the first transaction processing system for processing thereby and a second copy of the electronic message to a remote processing system coupled with the processor and configured to
[E] communicate an acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message back to the processor at least confirming receipt of the second copy of the electronic message thereby; and
[F] the generation of the result of the processing of the first copy of the electronic message by the first transaction processing system not being dependent on receipt of the acknowledgment message from the remote processing system such that the result may be generated by the first transaction processor prior or subsequent to the receipt of the acknowledgement message by the processor;
[G] preventing, by the processor, the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message from being communicated to the recipient device by the first transaction processing system until the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message has been received from the remote processing system, wherein communication of the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message is only prevented when the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message has been generated prior to receipt of the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 22) recites: processing the received message and forwarding two copies to two different systems ([C], [D]); an acknowledgement message is communicated back to the originating system ([E]) and providing the recipient device with the message only after the acknowledgement message has been received ([G]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is comparable to agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonably performing of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step processing a message, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally analyzing the nature of a message; the step of forwarding a message copy, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually, mentally or verbally dispatching the message; the step of communicating an acknowledgment message, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually, mentally or verbally dispatching the message; and the step of conditionally preventing the communication of the result, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user conditionally dispatching the message manually, mentally or verbally. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 22) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “by a processor,” “by the processor,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “the generation of the result of the processing of the first copy of the electronic message by the first transaction processing system not being dependent on receipt of the acknowledgment message from the remote processing system”, “wherein communication of the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message is only prevented when the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message has been generated prior to receipt of the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message”, as applied to the generation of the processing results, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: a transaction processing system receives a message ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 22) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 22) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 22 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2, which is representative of dependent claim 23, recites:
[A] a first processing thread which forwards the message copies and stores data in the log,
[B] a second processing thread which watches for results,
[C] a third processing thread which watches for acks, and
[D] a fourth processing threads which determines when to release results.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 (which is representative of dependent claim 23) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claim 28, recites:
[A] store the second copy of the electronic message
or a second transaction processing system configured to
[B] process each electronic message received thereby and generate a result indicative thereof as a backup to the first transaction processing system.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claim 28) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, which is representative of dependent claim 30, recites:
[A] the remote processing system configured to relay received electronic messages to the other remote processing systems and
[B] ensure that the other remote processing systems received the electronic messages related thereto.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 (which is representative of dependent claim 30) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 12, which is representative of dependent claim 33, recites:
[A] storing data indicative of the forwarding in a data structure maintained by the processor in a memory coupled therewith in association with data indicative of the electronic message and,
when the result based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message has been generated prior to receipt of the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message,
[B] storing data indicative of the result having been generated in the data structure; and when the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message has been received prior to generation of the result based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message,
[C] storing data indicative of the acknowledgment having been received in the data structure; and
wherein the preventing further comprises, upon determining by the processor,
[D] using the data structure, that data indicative of one of the result having been generated or the acknowledgment having been received is stored in the data structure,
[E] determining, by the processor, whether the other of the result having been generated or the acknowledgment having been received has occurred.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to reasonably performing of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 12 (which is representative of dependent claim 33) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 13, which is representative of dependent claim 34, recites:
[A] wherein the remote processing system is one of a plurality of remote processing systems to which the second copy of the electronic message is sent,
wherein the preventing further comprises
[B] preventing, by the processor, the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message from being communicated to the recipient by the first transaction processing system until the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message has been received from at least a subset of the plurality of remote processing systems.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to reasonably performing of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 13 (which is representative of dependent claim 34) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 14, which is representative of dependent claim 35, recites:
[A] receive and store the generated result from the first transaction processing system and
[B] communicate the generated result to the recipient device when not prevented from doing so.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 14 (which is representative of dependent claim 35) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 15, which is representative of dependent claim 36, recites:
[A] determining, by the processor a sequence in which the electronic message was received relative to previously received electronic messages, and
[B] determining upon a failure of the first transaction processing system, based on the determined sequence, the electronic message forwarded for processing in sequence just after to the last electronic message for which a generated result was communicated, such that recovery begins therefrom.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 15 (which is representative of dependent claim 36) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 16, which is representative of dependent claim 37, recites:
[A] assign a sequence to each electronic message upon receipt thereof, the sequence indicative of an ordering of the electronic message relative to previously received electronic messages.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 16 (which is representative of dependent claim 37) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 17, which is representative of dependent claim 38, recites:
[A] wherein the processor is configured to recover all electronic messages which have been forwarded to the transaction processing system for which a result has not been communicated.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 17 (which is representative of dependent claim 38) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 18, which is representative of dependent claim 39, recites:
[A] communicate the acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message only upon receipt of a request therefore from the processor,
[B] wherein when the request is received by the remote system subsequent to receipt thereby of a plurality of electronic messages received subsequent to a prior request, the acknowledgment message corresponds to the plurality of electronic messages confirming receipt thereof,
[C] wherein the processor dynamically determines when, with respect to forwarding of one or more electronic messages, to send the request for the acknowledgment message such that acknowledgment messages corresponding to a particular electronic message are received prior to or contemporaneously with the generation of the result of the processing thereof by the transaction processing system.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 18 (which is representative of dependent claim 39) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 19, which is representative of dependent claim 40, recites:
[A] communicate a single acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message and at least one other electronic message contemporaneously communicated therewith or previously communicated prior thereto.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 19 (which is representative of dependent claim 40) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 20, which is representative of dependent claim 41, recites:
[A] directing, by the processor, the remote processing system to communicate a single acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message and at least one other electronic message contemporaneously communicated therewith or previously communicated prior thereto.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 20 (which is representative of dependent claim 41) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 21, which is representative of dependent claim 42, recites:
[A] determining, by the processor, when to direct the remote processing system to communicate the single acknowledgment message based on a time difference between when a prior direction was sent and
[B] when the acknowledgment message responsive thereto was received, and an amount of time it took the first transaction processing system to process a prior electronic message upon receipt thereby and generate a result indicative thereof to be communicated to the recipient device.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”).
Therefore, dependent claim 21 (which is representative of dependent claim 42) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10, which are representative of dependent claims 24-27, 29, 31, respectively, recite:
wherein the processing of the electronic message by the first transaction processing system to generate the result takes an amount of time which may vary.
wherein the first transaction processing system is capable of processing more than one electronic message simultaneously.
wherein the first transaction processing system comprises a set of sequential processing stages, each of which may be processing a different electronic message at the same time.
wherein one or more of the sequential processing stages produces an intermediate processing result based on the processing of an electronic message.
wherein the second transaction processing system is located in a different geographic region from where the first transaction processing system is located.
wherein the acknowledgment message comprises data indicative of a commit operation performed by the remote processing system.
wherein communication of the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message is only prevented when the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message has been generated prior to receipt of the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the processor; the processing of a message; the processing system; the processing stages; the acknowledgement; the communication of results – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10, which are representative of dependent claims 23-27, 29, 31, respectively, are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-10, 12-31, 33-42 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 18, 22-31, 33-35, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al (US 2019/0370803), in view of Greer et al (US 7,216,205).
Regarding Claims 1, 22: Cohen discloses: A computer implemented method comprising:
intercepting, by a processor coupled with a message producer via an electronic communications network, an electronic message communicated to a first transaction processing system coupled with the processor for processing thereby prior to receipt by the first transaction processing system, {see at least [abstract] receiving a request for processing a transaction}
the first transaction processing system configured to
process each message upon receipt thereby and generate a result indicative thereof to be communicated to a recipient device; {see at least fig2, rc22, [0073] creating number of parts corresponding to the number of independent partner networks (reads on processing) a message; [0033]; [0042]}
contemporaneously forwarding, by the processor, a first copy of the electronic message to the first transaction processing system for processing thereby and a second copy of the electronic message to a remote processing system coupled with the processor and configured to {see at least fig2, rc24, [0087] sending portions to different networks (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on forwarding copies); [0033]; [0042]}
communicate an acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message back to the processor at least confirming receipt of the second copy of the electronic message thereby; {see at least fig2, rc26, rc28, [0087]-[0088] receiving portions from each network (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on confirming receipt of second copy); [0033]-[0042]}
preventing, by the processor, the result generated by the first transaction processing system based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message from being communicated to the recipient device by the first transaction processing system until the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message has been received from the remote processing system. {see at least fig2, rc32, rc34, [0088]-[0089] authorize or decline based on response; [0033]; [0042]}
wherein communication of the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message is only prevented when the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message has been generated prior to receipt of the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message. {see at least fig2, rc28, rc30, [0088]. Cohen does not explicitly disclose the conditional claim element, however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the next step of the process will be executed only after the condition has been fulfilled – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Cohen does not disclose, however, Greer discloses:
the generation of the result of the processing of the first copy of the electronic message by the first transaction processing system not being dependent on receipt of the acknowledgment message from the remote processing system such that the result may be generated by the first transaction processor prior or subsequent to the receipt of the acknowledgement message by the processor; and {see at least [claim1], [claim16] processing regardless of the feedback. Regarding the claim element “such that the result may be generated by the first transaction processor prior or subsequent to the receipt of the acknowledgement message by the processor”, Examiner notes that the steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since this claim limitation does not impose any limit on the step of processing a result (the processing of the first copy is not dependent by the receive message. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Cohen to include the elements of Greer. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to record the nature of the transaction. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143(D)). In the instant case, Cohen evidently discloses conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages. Greer is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of processing a transaction unconditionally in the same or similar context. Since both conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages and processing a transaction unconditionally are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Cohen, as well as Greer would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Cohen / Greer.
Regarding Claims 2, 23: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses: wherein the processor comprises
a first processing thread which forwards the message copies and stores data in the log, {see at least fig2, rc34, rc36, [0089] maintains copy}
a second processing thread which watches for results, {see at least [0033], (e) enabling (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on watching results)}
a third processing thread which watches for acks, and {see at least [0033], (e) enabling (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on watching acknowledgements)}
a fourth processing threads which determines when to release results. {see at least [0033], (g) authorize then request (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on determining when to release)}
Regarding Claims 3, 24: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses:
wherein the processing of the first copy of the electronic message by the first transaction processing system to generate the result takes an amount of time which may vary. {see at least [0020] deny aspects of the transaction at a later time}
Regarding Claims 4, 25: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses:
wherein the first transaction processing system is capable of processing more than one electronic message simultaneously. {see at least [0040] multiple approval/disapproval responses (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on processing more messages simultaneously}
Regarding Claims 5, 26: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses:
wherein the first transaction processing system comprises a set of sequential processing stages, each of which may be processing a different electronic message at the same time. {see at least [0040] multiple approval/disapproval responses (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on processing more messages sequentially}
Regarding Claims 6, 27: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 5, 26. Cohen further discloses:
wherein one or more of the sequential processing stages produces an intermediate processing result based on the processing of an electronic message. {see at least fig2, rc26-rc32, [0087]-[0088] multiple steps}
Regarding Claims 7, 28: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses: wherein the remote processing system comprises one of a storage system configured to
store the second copy of the electronic message or a second transaction processing system configured to {see at least fig2, r36, [0089] maintains a copy}
process each electronic received thereby message and generate a result indicative thereof as a backup to the first transaction processing system. {see at least fig2, rc22, [0073] creating number of parts corresponding to the number of networks (reads on processing; [0033]; [0042]}
Regarding Claims 8, 29: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 22. Cohen further discloses:
wherein the second transaction processing system is located in a different geographic region from where the first transaction processing system is located. {see at least fig1, rcPN4, rcPN6, rcD, [0070] cyber-notary (implicitly reads on different physical locations)}
Regarding Claims 9, 30: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses:
wherein the remote processing system is further coupled with a plurality of other remote processing systems, {see at least fig1, rcPN4, rcPN6, rcD, [0070] cyber-notary (implicitly reads on different physical locations)}
the remote processing system configured to
relay received electronic messages to the other remote processing systems and {see at least fig1, rcPN4, rcPN6, [0069] involves respective networks; [0073] number of partner networks (reads on other remote processing systems)}
ensure that the other remote processing systems received the electronic messages related thereto. {see at least fig2, rc24, r26, [0086]-[0087]. Cohen does not explicitly disclose ensuring the receipt, however, if acknowledgements are provided, it follows that the messages have been received}
Regarding Claims 10, 31: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses:
wherein the acknowledgment message comprises data indicative of a commit operation performed by the remote processing system. {see at least fig2, rc34, [0089] notifies of approval status (reads on committing the transaction operation}
Regarding Claims 12, 33: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses:
storing data indicative of the forwarding in a data structure maintained by the processor in a memory coupled therewith in association with data indicative of the electronic message and, {see at least fig6, rc36, [0089] maintaining a copy (reads on storing)}
when the result based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message has been generated prior to receipt of the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message, storing data indicative of the result having been generated in the data structure; and when the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message has been received prior to generation of the result based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message, {see at least fig6, rc36, [0089] maintaining a copy (reads on storing); fig2, rc28, rc30, [0088]. Cohen does not explicitly disclose the conditional claim element, however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the next step of the process will be executed only after the condition has been fulfilled – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
storing data indicative of the acknowledgment having been received in the data structure; and {see at least fig6, rc36, [0089] maintaining a copy (reads on storing)}
wherein the preventing further comprises, upon determining by the processor,
using the data structure, that data indicative of one of the results having been generated or the acknowledgment having been received is stored in the data structure, {see at least fig2, rc30, [0088] approve decline (reads on indicative of result)}
determining, by the processor, whether the other of the result having been generated or the acknowledgment having been received has occurred. {see at least fig2, rc32, rc34, [0088]-[0089]. Cohen does not explicitly disclose the conditional limitation, however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the next step of the process will be executed only after the condition has been fulfilled – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Regarding Claims 13, 34: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses:
wherein the remote processing system is one of a plurality of remote processing systems to which the second copy of the electronic message is sent, {see at least fig1, rcPN4, rcPN6, rcD, [0070] cyber-notary (implicitly reads on different physical locations)}
wherein the preventing further comprises
preventing, by the processor, the result generated based on the processing of the first copy of the electronic message from being communicated to the recipient by the first transaction processing system until the acknowledgment message corresponding to the second copy of the electronic message has been received from at least a subset of the plurality of remote processing systems. {see at least fig2, rc32, rc34, [0088]-[0089] authorize or decline based on response; [0033]; [0042]}
Regarding Claims 14, 35: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses: wherein the processor comprises a buffer memory configured to
receive and store the generated result from the first transaction processing system and {see at least fig2, rc36, [0089] maintain copy (reads on storing)}
communicate the generated result to the recipient device when not prevented from doing so. {see at least fig3, rc34, [0089] transaction provider is notified}
Regarding Claims 18, 39: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen further discloses: wherein the remote processing system is further configured to
communicate the acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message only upon receipt of a request therefore from the processor, wherein when the request is received by the remote processing system subsequent to receipt thereby of a plurality of electronic messages received subsequent to a prior request, the acknowledgment message corresponds to the plurality of electronic messages confirming receipt thereof, wherein the processor dynamically determines when, with respect to forwarding of one or more electronic messages, to send the request for the acknowledgment message such that acknowledgment messages corresponding to particular electronic messages are received prior to or contemporaneously with the generation of the result of the processing thereof by the first transaction processing system. {Cohen does not explicitly disclose the conditional limitation, however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the next step of the process will be executed only after the condition has been fulfilled – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Claims 15-17, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al (US 2019/0370803), in view of Greer et al (US 7,216,205), in further view of Zhao (US 2008/0250110).
Regarding Claims 15, 36: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen, Greer does not disclose, however, Zhao discloses:
determining, by the processor a sequence in which the electronic message was received relative to previously received electronic messages, and {see at least [abstract] one message of the sequence (reads on sequence of messages)}
determining upon a failure of the transaction processing system, based on the determined sequence, the electronic message forwarded for processing in sequence just after to the last electronic message for which a generated result was communicated, such that recovery begins therefrom. {see at least [0048] recover lost messages (reads on point where recovery begins)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Cohen, Greer to include the elements of Zhao. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to identify which messages are in need for recovery. In the instant case, Cohen, Greer evidently discloses conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages. Zhao is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of recovery for messages with failed acknowledgment in the same or similar context. Since both conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages, as well as recovery for messages with failed acknowledgment are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Cohen, Greer, as well as Zhao would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Cohen, Greer / Zhao.
Regarding Claims 16, 37: Cohen, Greer, Zhao discloses the limitations of Claims 15, 36. Zhao further discloses: wherein the processor is configured to
assign a sequence to each electronic message upon receipt thereof, the sequence indicative of an ordering of the electronic message relative to previously received electronic messages. {see at least [abstract] one message of the sequence (reads on sequence of messages)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Cohen, Greer, Zhao to include additional elements of Zhao. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to keep track of the workload. In the instant case, Cohen, Greer, Zhao evidently discloses conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages. Zhao is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of assigning a sequence to messages in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 17, 38: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen, Greer does not disclose, however, Zhao discloses: wherein the processor is configured to
recover all electronic messages which have been forwarded to the transaction processing system for which a result has not been communicated. {see at least [0048] recover lost messages (reads on point where recovery begins)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Cohen, Greer to include the elements of Zhao. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to identify which messages are in need for recovery. In the instant case, Cohen, Greer evidently discloses conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages. Zhao is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of recovery for messages with failed acknowledgment in the same or similar context. Since both conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages, as well as recovery for messages with failed acknowledgment are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Cohen, Greer, as well as Zhao would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Cohen, Greer / Zhao.
Claims 19-21, 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al (US 2019/0370803), in view of Greer et al (US 7,216,205), in further view of Gan et al (US 2018/0098320).
Regarding Claims 19, 40: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen, Greer does not disclose; however, Gan discloses: wherein the remote processing system is further configured to
communicate a single acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message and at least one other electronic message contemporaneously communicated therewith or previously communicated prior thereto. {see at least [0111] transmit a plurality of acknowledgement messages (reads on one plus at least one more messages)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Cohen, Greer to include the elements of Gan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve the system throughput. In the instant case, Cohen, Greer evidently discloses conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages. Gan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of multiple acknowledgment messages in the same or similar context. Since both conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages, as well as multiple acknowledgment messages are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Cohen, Greer, as well as Gan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Cohen, Greer / Gan.
Regarding Claims 20, 41: Cohen, Greer discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 22. Cohen, Greer does not disclose; however, Gan discloses:
directing, by the processor, the remote processing system to communicate a single acknowledgment message corresponding to the electronic message and at least one other electronic message contemporaneously communicated therewith or previously communicated prior thereto. {see at least [0111] transmit a plurality of acknowledgement messages (reads on one plus at least one more messages)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Cohen, Greer to include the elements of Gan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve the system throughput. In the instant case, Cohen, Greer evidently discloses conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages. Gan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of multiple acknowledgment messages in the same or similar context. Since both conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages, as well as multiple acknowledgment messages are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Cohen, Greer, as well as Gan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Cohen, Greer / Gan.
Regarding Claims 21, 42: Cohen, Greer, Gan discloses the limitations of Claims 20, 41. Gan further discloses:
determining, by the processor, when to direct the remote processing system to communicate the single acknowledgment message based on a time difference between when a prior direction was sent and when the acknowledgment message responsive thereto was received, and an amount of time it took the first transaction processing system to process a prior electronic message upon receipt thereby and {see at least [0110] time difference between request and response}
generate a result indicative thereof to be communicated to the recipient device. {see at least [0026] processing results (reads on generating a result). The claim element “to be communicated to the recipient device” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Cohen, Greer, Gan to include additional elements of Gan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve the system throughput. In the instant case, Cohen, Greer, Gan evidently discloses conditionally transmitting acknowledgment messages. Gan is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of multiple acknowledgment messages in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240372707 A1 Knobloch; Daniel Bryan et al. PROTECTING SECRETS WITH MULTI-PARTY APPROVAL IN COMPUTER NETWORKS - Systems and methods herein are for protecting secrets with multi-party approval in a computer network. One or more processing units enable accumulation of a plurality of encrypted shards that are received at different timepoints and that are associated with a secret. A process that is remote from the server is enabled, upon accumulating a predetermined number of the plurality of encrypted shards, to cause, in communication with a trusted server, decryption and combination to be performed on the plurality of encrypted shards to provide access to the secret.
US 20150288770 A1 Owens; David S. System and Computer Implemented Method of Personal Monitoring - A system and computer implemented method of personal monitoring is provided. The method includes allowing a user to engage in a number of on-line activities, determining, on a computer, if the user engaged in on-line activities, and if the determination is negative, then performing, on a computer, a number of responsive actions. The system and method further provide for an investigation of external modules; that is, the system and method investigate external sites such as, but not limited to, social networks, forums, weblogs (blogs), that are not associated with the personal monitoring module. The system and method further allow a proxy to respond for the user.
US 20070088793 A1 Landsman; Richard A. Filter for instant messaging - The present invention provides for methods and computer programs for filtering instant messages sent to a recipient. An initial instant message is received from a sender, intended for the recipient. Then, a reply message is sent to the sender requesting that the sender perform a verification process. The method monitors for an incoming response message from the sender, and when the incoming response message is received, the method determines whether the sender properly completed the verification process.
US 20200328893 A1 WESTLAND; Duncan James METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ENHANCING NETWORK PRIVACY OF MULTIPLE PARTY DOCUMENTS ON DISTRIBUTED LEDGER-BASED NETWORKS Embodiments of the instant disclosure include methods and systems directed at providing enhanced security and privacy to multiple party communications that occur on zero knowledge proof (ZKP)-enabled distributed ledger-based networks (DLNs). In particular, the methods and systems include subject matter related to the deployment, and approval, of a multi-party document or instrument for consideration and approval by multiple participants of the DLN.
US 20200355819 A1 Padaki; Aditya V. et al. FRAMEWORK AND METHOD FOR ACKNOWLEDGING MULTIPLE MESSAGES IN UWB COMMUNICATION AND RANGING SYSTEMS A method and apparatus a first network entity in a wireless communication system supporting ranging capability is provided. The method and apparatus comprises: identifying, in a ranging block, one or more ranging rounds to transmit a ranging control message (RCM) with a multiple message receipt confirmation request (MMRCR) for a transmission of at least one first message comprising at least one of a set of ranging messages or a set of ranging ancillary data messages; transmitting, to a second network entity, the RCM with the MMRCR; transmitting, to the second network entity, ranging ancillary data in at least one ranging round of one or more ranging rounds following the RCM, wherein the ranging ancillary data is associated with the MMRCR; and receiving, from the second network entity, a ranging multiple message receipt confirmation (RMMRC) corresponding to the transmission of the at least one first message.
US 6502128 B1 Kumpf; David A. Server and a method for communicating event messages from the server connected to a peripheral device and a client computer A method and system for communicating an event message from a server connected to at least one peripheral device and at least one client via a network between a peripheral device and at least one client operably connected via a network. The method includes the server sending a message to any available peripheral device, responding to an event message from at least one peripheral device, responding to an acknowledgment message from at least one client, and responding to an expired timeout.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Accordingly, while the claims may involve a judicial exception, they do not recite a judicial exception and are therefore eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The independent claims of the instant application are directed to two distinct grouping of abstract ideas, as defined in MPEP 2106.04-07.
Conditionally communicating transaction results is integral part of commercial activity, which falls under both under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). It also is also, or in addition, part of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “However, even if the claims are found to recite a judicial exception, here, when read as a whole, the claims are directed to a specific means that improves the relevant technology, i.e., in processing failure recovery.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Transaction failure recovery is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants submit that the claims provide a specific technological solution for the provision of a failure recovery system for a transaction processing system which minimizes, if not eliminates, both the amount of data, i.e., the number of transactions, which can be lost during a failure and the performance impact on the system is a technical implementation and problems therewith, such as data loss, processing and communications latency variation, processing performance degradation, are technical problems which can affect computer processes and systems which rely on electronic message based communication for operation.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Examiner is cautioned not to characterize the claims at an impermissibly high level of generality as that may ensure that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
An examiner can describe an abstract idea at different levels of generality without affecting the patent-eligibility analysis. Cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240--41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis."). That is the case here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea recited in claim 1, the result is the same – claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Cf Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Although not as broad as the district court's abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.").
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Like the claims in Desjardins, the present claims, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, impart a specific improved functionality to electronic transaction processing systems that require fault tolerant mechanisms to ensure failure recovery.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that the claims are patent-eligible because they result in an improvement in the technology field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear that the claims are directed to an improvement to an existing technology field. The claims appear directed to an improvement to failure recovery mechanisms. The technological improvements identified by the courts in Diehr, Enfish, and Bascom are significantly different than programming a computer to recovering failures (see discussion below). As stated in MPEP § 2106.05(a) "[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides [a technological] improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art." The application disclosure fails to discuss or suggest an improvement to any underlying technical field executing the identified abstract idea. The original disclosure fails to discuss prior art failure recovery engines, as claimed by Applicant. In spite of disclosing at [0097]-[0099] some perceived advantages which allegedly are brought about by the instant application, the original disclosure fails to discuss prior art failure recovery engines. The original disclosure therefore does not disclose, suggest, imply or allude to that the particular failure recovery engine structures being claimed are an improvement over prior art systems. The fact that the disclosure failed to identify a technical problem and the fact that the original disclosure fails to disclose, suggest, imply or allude to how or why the claimed arrangement of system elements enables an improvement, suggests that the claimed invention is not directed to this technical improvement. Instead, it appears Applicant has attempted to identify, after the fact, some unsubstantiated benefit of the claimed matter in an effort to exhibit that the claims are directed to a technical improvement. (see MPEP 2106.05(a); (i) specification requirements in regard to the technological improvements (should describe the improvement): McRO v Bandai – specification provides explanation, Affinity Labs – specification does not provide explanation; (ii) claim requirements in regard to the improvements (should recite the improvement): Enfish – claim reflects the improvement, Intellectual Ventures – claim does not reflect the improvement).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants again caution the Examiner not to oversimplify Applicants' claims or ignore the limitations thereof, both individually and in the claimed combination …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Indeed, the claims are directed to a novel and patentable system and architecture for …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the necessity of the Office to provide art in a determination that the claimed elements are not a judicial exception in a 101 analysis, is unpersuasive. Applicant suggests that novelty and/or non-obviousness must be considered in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, novelty and non-obviousness (i.e., a 102/103 prior art-type analysis) have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea, or involves conventional and routine elements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear by rejecting an argument substantially similar to applicant’s in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree … that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). The prior Office action (and herein in the 101 rejection analysis, above) made a determination, for the reasons given, that the instant claims are directed as part of the “inventive concept” features/elements, which do not bring about a technological improvement to the recited elements or require the use of a special purpose computing device. Additionally, whether claimed features/elements are routine and/or conventional is just one factor in the 101 analysis and is not determinative.
The MPEP discloses that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination,” and “lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements.” MPEP 2106.05(I)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “At the very least, Applicants' claims are directed to a practical application of an improved technical architecture for electronically controlling an implied opportunity controller, and its interactions with a matching component external thereto, via an external processor.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The unique combination of elements recited show that the claim is not to the idea of processing financial transactions or the business thereof, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that uniquely allow for a computer to regulate data processing operations in order to facilitate failure recovery.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP § 2106.04(e) requires that the identified abstract idea, a judicial exception (i.e., “a process aimed at communicating processing results to a destination only after receipt of a transaction copy is acknowledged by the remote processing system”), is applied/used in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified judicial exception to a particular environment. Examiner argues that this definitely is not the case in the instant situation. Therefore, Applicant is requested to provide details of the usage beyond the linking.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants submit that each and every limitation of Applicants' claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional nature.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not allege that limitations are well-understood, routine, or conventional in nature (the one exception is in the analysis of claims 14, 35 which is based on precedential court decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Like the claims in Annakov, the claims herein recite a complex process and interactions the control how various hardware elements interact.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The complexity of processes and interactions is not an eligibility criterion, as defined by MPEP 2106.04-07.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants submit that the claimed invention is unique in that it essentially externally selectively manages the communication of processing results based on ensuring that the message, which was processed, was successfully received by a remote system.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Uniqueness is not an eligibility criterion, as defined by MPEP 2106.04-07.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Effectively, the claims, as opposed to being directed to an abstract idea, instead relate to a practical application which externally selectively electronically controls operation of a transaction processing system.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claimed invention provides a specific implementation which effectively implements a message communication regulation system based on ensuring that copies of messages have been received at a remote system and, thereby, assuring that the transaction processing system can be recovered in a failure situation with minimal data loss and minimal performance impact.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A specific implementation is not an eligibility criterion, as defined by MPEP 2106.04-07.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants submit that the present claims cover a particular solution to a problem and a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, e.g. claim 1 recites a specific process by which a message communication by a transaction processing system may be regulated to facilitate efficient system failure recovery.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A particular solution is not an eligibility criterion, as defined by MPEP 2106.04-07.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Accordingly, as opposed to claiming a result or resulting system, the claims recite specific steps/operations which accomplish a desired result.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Specific steps/operations is not an eligibility criterion, as defined by MPEP 2106.04-07.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “This is neither a routine nor conventional activity previously known in the industry, or a generic computerization thereof, as evidenced by the lack of prior art, but is instead a patentable application and meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not allege that limitations are well-understood, routine, or conventional in nature (the one exception is in the analysis of claims 14, 35 which is based on precedential court decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
Second, it appears that Applicant argues that patentable applications cannot be directed to abstract ideas. Applicant’s argument regarding the necessity of the Office to provide art in a determination that the claimed elements are not a judicial exception in a 101 analysis, is unpersuasive. Applicant suggests that novelty and/or non-obviousness must be considered in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, novelty and non-obviousness (i.e., a 102/103 prior art-type analysis) have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea, or involves conventional and routine elements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear by rejecting an argument substantially similar to applicant’s in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree … that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). The prior Office action (and herein in the 101 rejection analysis, above) made a determination, for the reasons given, that the instant claims are directed as part of the “inventive concept” features/elements, which do not bring about a technological improvement to the recited elements or require the use of a special purpose computing device. Additionally, whether claimed features/elements are routine and/or conventional is just one factor in the 101 analysis and is not determinative.
The MPEP discloses that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination,” and “lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements.” MPEP 2106.05(I)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants again submit that that while the Examiner may not view the additional elements as adding significantly more, "those additional elements when viewed in combination" most certainly "amount to significantly more than the exception by meaningfully limiting the judicial exception."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action concludes at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 22) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 22 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants submit that the combination of elements in Applicants' claims perform functions which are not merely generic and at least some of the problems solved by Applicants' invention are specifically rooted in technology, specifically in electronic transaction processing systems.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Being specifically routed in technology is not an eligibility criterion, as defined by MPEP 2106.04-07. Best case it can be a necessary, but not a sufficient eligibility condition.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “However, even if the claims are found to include an abstract idea, the claimed inventions is neither a routine nor conventional activity previously known in the industry, but is instead a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, Applicants submit that the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, i.e. a practical application of the abstract idea which does not otherwise pre-empt the abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Furthermore, “… however, the courts do not use preemption as a stand‐alone test for eligibility (Flook; Mayo). It should be kept in mind, however, that while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim is eligible (Alice).” (see July 2015 IEG Update: Subject Matter Eligibility – VI. The Role of Preemption)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Here, as previously noted, the specifically disclosed and claimed computer
implemented method comprising: … are additional elements that provide "something more" than mere operation of a transaction processing system. The combination of steps recited show that the claim is not to the idea of processing a transaction, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that allow for regulating processing result message communication based on confirming receipt of those messages by a remove processing system so as to implement efficient failure recovery.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action concludes at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 22) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 22 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants again assert that the lack of any rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 further supports that the Examiner can reach no other conclusion.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the necessity of the Office to provide art in a determination that the claimed elements are not a judicial exception in a 101 analysis, is unpersuasive. Applicant suggests that novelty and/or non-obviousness must be considered in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, novelty and non-obviousness (i.e., a 102/103 prior art-type analysis) have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea, or involves conventional and routine elements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear by rejecting an argument substantially similar to applicant’s in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree … that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). The prior Office action (and herein in the 101 rejection analysis, above) made a determination, for the reasons given, that the instant claims are directed as part of the “inventive concept” features/elements, which do not bring about a technological improvement to the recited elements or require the use of a special purpose computing device. Additionally, whether claimed features/elements are routine and/or conventional is just one factor in the 101 analysis and is not determinative.
The MPEP discloses that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination,” and “lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements.” MPEP 2106.05(I)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants note that if the Examiner disagrees with Applicants that the claims are directed to "something more" and are not routine, conventional or well known in the art, they must find, and expressly support a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following four options:”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, the eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action concludes at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 22) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 22 are deemed ineligible.
Second, the eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not allege that limitations are well-understood, routine, or conventional in nature (the one exception is in the analysis of claims 14, 35 which is based on precedential court decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. After further considerations, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “Cohen neither teaches nor suggests "the generation of the result of the processing of the first copy of the electronic message by the first transaction processing system not being dependent on receipt of the acknowledgment message from the remote processing system" as claimed.”
Applicant’s arguments persuasive. However, Greer discloses:
the generation of the result of the processing of the first copy of the electronic message by the first transaction processing system not being dependent on receipt of the acknowledgment message from the remote processing system such that the result may be generated by the first transaction processor prior or subsequent to the receipt of the acknowledgement message by the processor; and {see at least [claim1], [claim16] processing regardless of the feedback. Regarding the claim element “such that the result may be generated by the first transaction processor prior or subsequent to the receipt of the acknowledgement message by the processor”, Examiner notes that the steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since this claim limitation does not impose any limit on the step of processing a result (the processing of the first copy is not dependent by the receive message. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698