Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 20 February 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted in this application on 20 May 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copies of the1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for managing disruption affecting a transaction path and routing the transaction to an alternate path for operation continuity.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent method claim 1, recites the limitations of monitoring transaction requests; detecting a disruption affecting a transaction path of a specific transaction of the transaction requests; identifying an alternate transaction path in response to detecting the disruption; rerouting the specific transaction to the alternate transaction path; determining that the alternate transaction path is not available for the specific transaction; submitting the specific transaction to a decentralized marketplace upon determining the alternate transaction path is not available for the specific transaction; initiating a bidding process between one or more entities via the decentralized marketplace; and displaying real-time transaction status and market data.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via transactional activities/interactions (such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people), but for the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are commercial or legal interactions or sales activities (processing transaction, order routing and marketplace bidding process). If a claim limitation covers commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions, one or more user devices, a network and a user interface to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0032-0033). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, recites the additional limitations of analyze historical transaction data to predict a future network disruption, utilize machine learning algorithms to optimize the selection of the alternate transaction path, utilize machine learning algorithms to aggregate and anonymize transaction data and provide market insights to one or more third-party entities, dynamically update the user interface based on changes in the transaction status or market conditions, generate and display, via the user interface, a comparison of transaction processing options between a traditional entity and the decentralized marketplace and execute a smart contract automating the bidding process within the decentralized marketplace. These limitations further define the abstract idea and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1.
Lastly, the dependent claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 18 and 20, recite the additional elements of machine learning algorithms and a user interface to perform the steps and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1 above. The claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Falah et al. US 20190019186 A1 disclose systems and methods for “automated decentralized multilateral transaction processing may include: (1) receiving a plurality of transaction requests to conduct a plurality of transactions; (2) determining that a party to a first transaction of the plurality of transactions does not meet a liquidity requirement to conduct the first transaction; (3) executing a netting algorithm to identify a second transaction of the plurality of transactions that when executed allows the first transaction to execute; and (4) executing the first and second transactions”.
Creech US 20210056094 A1 discloses transaction processing systems include “a transaction processing device and a distributed processing system. The transaction processing device obtains transaction requests from a variety of client devices and process the transaction requests. The distributed processing system may also obtain the transaction requests and maintain a transaction history of the transaction requests obtained and/or processed by the transaction processing device. Both the distributed processing system and the transaction processing device may send a transaction succeeded event based on the transaction being processed successfully. The transaction processing device and distributed ledger may also maintain an indication of if a particular transaction has been processed. When the transaction processing device becomes available after a period of unavailability, the transaction history for both the transaction processing device and distributed ledger may be reconciled ".
Costello et al. US 20230342126 A1 disclose “a system, method and framework that facilitate and simplify computing solutions requirements or description breakdown into user-driven, autonomous system of decentralized distributed intents fulfilled by shapes (software and software stack) organized and implemented as essential, minimized capabilities effortlessly extended, assembled, swapped, and re-organized; simplifying and accelerating prototyping, development, packaging, deployment, and maintenance of a solution’s lifecycle, e.g., an Artificial Intelligence system. Embodiments of the system, framework, and method provide the infrastructure for defining intents and shapes, support green computing and continuous updates, and eliminate endless incremental technology refreshes with minimum operational impact to a deployed solution. Inherent to the system, framework, method is a dramatic reduction in cybersecurity vulnerabilities and attack surfaces among other benefits”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights