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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “computer implemented method”. Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “processing a transaction using rules” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk in a transaction is similar to determining to process a transaction based on requirements being fulfilled), commercial or legal interactions (analyzing and verifying details of a financial transaction is a long standing commercial practice and similar to a multi-part transaction, (see Bozeman Financial v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta))” in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 1 recites receiving a transaction that is part of a multi-part transaction, wherein the service comprises virtual threads; determining the transaction does not already exist in transaction state data for the service; updating the status of the transaction in the transaction state data for the service to pending; processing the transaction; updating the status of the transaction in the transaction state data for the service to completed; receiving a request for the status of the transaction; responding to the request for the status of the transaction; sending request for status to an endpoint of at least one other service that is processing at least one other transaction of the multi-part transaction; and receiving a response from the at least one other service of a status of completed. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a service, a storage, a processor, and a virtual thread represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of processing a transaction using rules.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of processing a transaction using rules using computer technology (e.g. a service). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-114, and 16-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1, 8, and 15 recite "receiving, by the service at using at any of the virtual threads" which is not grammatically correct and unclear to the Examiner if the Applicant intended it to read “by the service using any of the virtual threads” or another interpretation. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are objected to due to their dependency from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Claims 8-14 are objected to because a system claim is limited by structure or components such as the claimed storage and processor, but the method steps are not performed by the processor or any component of the system and therefore do not limit the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "at a service" and “by the service”. Claims 2-4 and 6-7 recite similar claim language. It is unclear whether the “at” or “by” is a term of proximity, or a term of action (i.e. the service performs the action). Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "with a service”. Claims 9-11 and 13-14 recite similar claim language. The specification at [00021] specifies the computing device may include a service that may be any suitable combination of hardware and software on the computing device and under the BRI of the disclosure, claims 8-14 only encompass software with no hardware such as a processor or computing device. It is unclear if the processor or the service is performing the steps, which are non-limiting in a system claim if the structure performing the steps is not within the scope of the claim. It is also unclear if the service is a component of the system. Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence from claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "at a service" and “by the service”. Claims 16-18 and 20 recite similar claim language. See the 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claim 8 above. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence from claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chaloupka US 2020/0228418
Sheard US 10489787 Krishnaswamy US 2024/0126745
Thread, Wikipedia, https://web.archive.org/web/20230522124219/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing), wayback machine, 22 May 2023 Roy, “Microservices Design pattern: SAGA”, Medium, 2 June 2024, https://medium.com/@adrikaroy/microservices-design-pattern-saga-c0f27ab3a159
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID P. SHARVIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692