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
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The claims do not recite a process of facilitating payments although they may relate to this concept.
The Office asserts that the claims recite “receiving…an error notification associated with a payment process…modifying…a payment process configuration”. The Office asserts that the claim limitations themselves are sufficient to make the claims directed to “facilitating payments” as previously noted. The Office also notes that the specification itself identifies the application as relating to payment systems and the use of payment process configurations in Para. 0002.
The claims recite numerous limitations that do not recite a judicial exception and must be considered additional elements in the step 2A, prong two and step 2B analysis.
The Office asserts that the applicant asserts that the entire claim is to be considered additional limitations and do not recite a commercial interaction, or any judicial exception. The Office notes that the applicants specification, in the background and the brief summary, is replete with statements concerning the use of payment process configurations and their use by financial institutions for completing payment operations. These payment operations are commercial interactions.
The claims recite meaningful limitations and do not recite insignificant extrasolution activity. For example, limitations are limited to being performed in connection with locally stored payment process configurations and by the orchestrator device.
The Office asserts that the claims have not been rejected as including insignificant extrasolution activity so this argument is moot. Additionally, “locally stored payment processes” is broadly stated. A payment process is merely a rule and the phrase “locally stored” does not necessarily confer computer activity. Paper/manual files can be locally stored in a filing cabinet.
The claims improve the functioning of a computer by improving system reliability and efficiency…by reducing the storage burden on the orchestrator device…and provides a scalable framework…
The Office asserts that the reliability and efficiency improvements are a result of the use of computers only and not on the process recited by the claims or within the specification. Indeed, the claims and specification recite the use of distributed computing systems which are old and well known and are known for improving system efficiency and reducing the operational burden on any one component. The prior art of Ault (US 5617568 A) identifies distributed computing systems as old and well known and also describes the benefits, being at least system efficiency, scalability and reduced storage and computing burden on individual components (Background).
The specific arrangement recited results in the improvement to computer functionality by enhancing error handling by preventing disruption to other participant devices.
The Office asserts that there is no “specific” arrangement of devices recited. Additionally, it is unclear how error handling is enhanced by preventing disruption to other devices. The possibility of disruption may be reduced but the applicant has not shown that disruption is “prevented”. Additionally, as mentioned previously, the improvement comes from the use of known technology, i.e., distributed computing.
The claims are similar to those of other decisions which set forth improvements in the functioning of a computer system because they improve how an orchestrator device manages distributed payment process configurations which enhance how the orchestrator device itself operates.
The Office again asserts that the systems and devices are not improved because of the use of known technology.
The claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize a judicial exception because they provide a particular outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.
The Office asserts that the judicial exception cannot provide the improvement. In this case, the claims recite a judicial exception which is implemented by computers. The particular outcome is part of the judicial exception. The additional elements are the computer implementation of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(a).
The claims recite elements which are not well-understood, routine and conventional, emphasized by Exergen in the MPEP.
The Office asserts that what is well-understood, routine and conventional is distributed processing as previously noted. The lack of prior art is not associated with the distributed processing activities but with those elements related to the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
A computer-implemented method for error source identification, the computer-implemented method comprising:
Receiving, by an orchestrator device, an error notification associated with a payment process that includes operations by a first participant device and a second participant device, wherein the orchestrator device stores a plurality of payment process configurations locally and each of the plurality of payment process configurations comprises configurable instructions for performing an associated portion of the payment process;
accessing, by the orchestrator device, first operation data stored locally by the first participant device;
accessing, by the orchestrator device, second operation data stored locally by
the second participant device;
determining, by the orchestrator device, an error source in either a first payment process configuration of the first participant device or a second payment process configuration of the second participant device based upon the first operation data and the second operation data; and
modifying, by the orchestrator device, a payment process configuration of the plurality of payment process configurations based upon the determined error source.
The underlined elements represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions because the claims are directed toward facilitating payments.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is implemented using computers including participant devices which are generically recited, adding the words “apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the reasons above.
Claims 8 and 15 are similarly rejected. Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory with computer-readable instructions. Claim 15 is directed an apparatus comprising means. Each claim comprises generically recited elements amounting to adding the words “apply it” as cited above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and as a whole and, in combination, merely comprise the abstract idea with the words “apply it”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694