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
The claims 1-17 are pending and are considered in this Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 9-17 can be allowable, since each of the claims contains allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock et al. (hereinafter referred to as Mohrlock) (U. S. Pub. No. 2020/0294012 A1) in view of Filsfils et al. (hereinafter referred to as Filsfils) (U. S. Pub. No. 2011/0228785 A1),
As to claim 1, Mohrlock teaches a network for use in dynamically routing messages, the network including: a computing device including a processor and a memory, which includes executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (See ABSTRACT, “for routing and processing computer messages are disclose. The message routing and processing computing device stores payment account identifiers”; and ¶[0088], “a computer program is provided, and the program is embodied on a computer readable medium. In an example, the system is executed on a single computer system”) cause the processor to:
receive, from a first institution, a message including an account number indicative of a second institution (See Abstract, “receive a computer message including a payment account identifier. Based, at least in part, on the payment account identifier, the message routing and processing computing device determine a message route for the message and routes the message accordingly”, read as a message including an account number; and ¶[0083], “routing received computer messages further includes generating an appropriate header including necessary routing information. For example, in one embodiment, MRP computing device generates a transaction protocol data unit (TPDU) header, appends the TPDU header to the received ISO 8583 message, and transmits the received message in accordance with the destination data stored in the TPDU header [indicative of a second institution]”, read as message including account number indicative of a second institution);
identify a routing table entry for the message, based on the account number included in the message (See ¶[0023], “A message routing and processing (MRP) computing device is disclosed that routes computer messages based on a payment account identifier as opposed to a BIN (banking identification number)…The MPP computing device then performs a lookup in a routing table or applies routing rules to determine how to route the computer message and routes the message accordingly ”); and route the message to a third institution (See ¶[0083], “routing received computer messages further includes generating an appropriate header including necessary routing information. For example, in one embodiment, MRP computing device generates a transaction protocol data unit (TPDU) header, appends the TPDU header to the received ISO 8583 message, and transmits the received message in accordance with the destination data stored in the TPDU header [indicative of a second institution or third institution]”, read as routing table entry for the message based on the account number).
Although Mohrlock teaches substantial features of the claimed invention, Mohrlock fails to expressly teach wherein identify a dynamic routing tag in the routing table entry; and the dynamic routing tag.
In analogous teaching, Filsfils teaches wherein identify a dynamic routing tag in the routing table entry; and the dynamic routing tag (See ABSTRACT, “the router tags the route advertised by the IGP as an important route for convergence to indicate that the tagged route is to be processed before other routes that have not been tagged during convergence processing. The tagged route is advertised within the routing domain””, read as routing tag; ¶[0012], “The routers typically have a topology table that contains all destinations advertised by neighbors. Each entry in the topology table includes the destination address and a list of neighbors that have advertised the destination. For each neighbor, the entry records the advertised metric, which the neighbor stores in its routing table”, read as routing table entry; and ¶[0022], “dynamically determining such an important route using, e.g., … route tagging…the routing domain using …route tagging so that router can process the route with high priority”, read as dynamic routing ).
Filsfils teaches method and apparatus of dynamic route tagging. Mohrlock teaches computer message routing and processing system and method.
Thus, given the teaching of Filsfils, it 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 to combine the teaching of Filsfils into Mohrlock for method and system of routing management. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have been advantageous to modify teaching of Mohrlock with the teachings of Filsfils (See ¶[0019], “determining whether an address advertised by a routing protocol is important for fast convergence is based on route labeling or “route tagging””). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to use the method and system to allow dynamic routing using tag to route the message.
As to claim 2, Mohrlock and Filsfils teach the network of claim 1. Mohrlock further teaches wherein the routing table entry includes an instruction to route the message to the second institution ((See ¶[0023], “A message routing and processing (MRP) computing device is disclosed that routes computer messages based on a payment account identifier as opposed to a BIN (banking identification number)…The MPP computing device then performs a lookup in a routing table or applies routing rules to determine how to route the computer message and routes the message accordingly ”, routing rules is read as instruction).
As to claim 3, Mohrlock and Filsfils teach the network of claim 1. Mohrlock further teaches wherein the message includes a message type; and wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to identify the routing table entry further based on the message type ((See ¶[0023], “A message routing and processing (MRP) computing device is disclosed that routes computer messages based on a payment account identifier [message type] as opposed to a BIN (banking identification number)…the computer message is passed in its entirety to the MRP computing device. The MPP computing device then performs a lookup in a routing table or applies routing rules to determine how to route the computer message and routes the message accordingly”, message is based on payment account identifier, read as based on message type).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock in view of Filsfils and further in view of Dutt et al. (hereinafter referred to as Dutt) (U. S. Patent No. 9,331,910 B2).
As to claim 4, Mohrlock and Filsfils teach the network of claim 1. However, Mohrlock and Filsfils fail to expressly teach the dynamic routing tag is associated with a configuration file, which is separate from the routing table entry, the configuration file including one or more criteria for routing the message; and wherein the one or more criteria is/are based on data included in the message.
In analogous teaching, Dutt teaches wherein the dynamic routing tag is associated with a configuration file (See ABSTRACT, “methods and systems for automatically generating routing configuration files based on a network topology and a collection of routing configuration templates”; read as configuration file is associated with network topology and routing; and Col. 2, lines 41-44, “Based on one or more of the above-described input, the routing configuration file generator automatically generates a routing configuration file for one or more nodes of the network” , read as dynamic routing tag is associated with a configuration file), which is separate from the routing table entry (See Col. 1, lines 25-28, “in some cases, configurating the intermediary devices, involves specifying whether routing tables should be forwarded to other devices”, read as separate from the routing table entry tag), the configuration file including one or more criteria for routing the message; and wherein one or more criteria is/are based on data included in the message (See Col. 1, lines 63-67, “a routing configuration file generator automatically generates configuration files for configuring a network device in accordance with a routing protocol”, read as including one or more criteria for routing the message [in accordance with a routing protocol, i.e., including one or more criteria]), and protocol is based on data included in the message).
Dutt teaches methods and systems for automatic generation of routing configuration files. Filsfils teaches method and apparatus of dynamic route tagging. Mohrlock teaches computer message routing and processing system and method.
Thus, given the teaching of Dutt, it 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 to combine the teaching of Dutt into Filsfils and Mohrlock for method and system of routing management. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have been advantageous to modify teaching of Dutt with the teachings of Filsfils and Mohrlock (See Col.2, lines 1-5, “since configuration file is an automated process, configuration errs by network operators are significantly reduced. Further, time spent by network operators to configure and troubleshoot network devices is significantly reduced, freeing up network operators for other tasks”). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to use the method and system to reduce errors and save time to route the message.
As to claim 6, Mohrlock and Filsfils teach the network of claim 4. However, Mohrlock and Filsfils fail to teach wherein the configuration file includes a unique identifier of the third institution.
In analogous teaching, Dutt teaches wherein the configuration file includes a unique identifier of the third institution (See Col. 2, lines 18-21, “the routing configuration file templates may include placeholders for information specific to a certain network configuration. Such information may include identifiers associated with nodes”, read as unique identifier of the institution); and wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to route the message to the third institution based on the unique identifier of the third institution included in the configuration file (See Col. 2, lines 18-21, “the routing configuration file templates may include placeholders for information specific to a certain network configuration. Such information may include identifiers associated with nodes, identifiers associated with interfaces of a node, identifiers associated with a group of nodes, etc. [ a node in the third institution]”).
Dutt teaches methods and systems for automatic generation of routing configuration files. Filsfils teaches method and apparatus of dynamic route tagging. Mohrlock teaches computer message routing and processing system and method.
Thus, given the teaching of Dutt, it 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 to combine the teaching of Dutt into Filsfils and Mohrlock for method and system of routing management. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have been advantageous to modify teaching of Dutt with the teachings of Filsfils and Mohrlock (See Col.2, lines 1-5, “since configuration file is an automated process, configuration errs by network operators are significantly reduced. Further, time spent by network operators to configure and troubleshoot network devices is significantly reduced, freeing up network operators for other tasks”). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to use the method and system to reduce errors and save time to route the message.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock in view of Filsfils and further in view of Dutt, and further in view of Lacoss-Arnold (hereinafter referred to as Lacoss) (U. S. Pub. No. 2021/0110392 A1).
As to claim 5, Mohrlock, Filsfils and Dutt teach the network of claim 4. Mhorlock teaches wherein the data included in the message includes a bank identification number (BIN) of the account number (See ¶[0029], “Although a payment account identifier need not contain particular strings of characters or numbers to convey routing information, strings of characters or numbers within the payment account identifier may nevertheless be used to convey additional information about the original payment card product, the cardholder, the original issuing bank”, information about the original issuing bank is read as bank identification number).
However, Mohrlock, Filsfils and Dutt fail to expressly teach wherein the data included in the message includes a currency code, a bank identification number (BIN) of the account number.
In analogous teaching, Lacoss further teaches wherein the data included in the message includes a currency code, a bank identification number (BIN) of the account number (See ¶[0043], “message, which includes …merchant, and acquirer ID, as well as a real country ID, a currency ID, other data elements required by common card-based payment schemes”, read as including a currency code).
Lacoss teaches systems and methods for use in facilitating network messaging. Dutt teaches methods and systems for automatic generation of routing configuration files. Filsfils teaches method and apparatus of dynamic route tagging. Mohrlock teaches computer message routing and processing system and method.
Thus, given the teaching of Lacoss, it 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 to combine the teaching of Lacoss into Dutt, Filsfils and Mohrlock for method and system of fund transfer routing management. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have been advantageous to modify teaching of Dutt, Filsfils and Mohrlock with teaching of Lacoss (See ¶[0004], “provides a platform to accommodate real time fund transfers for financial institutions integrated into the platform”). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to use the method and system for real time fund transfer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock in view of Filsfils and further in view of Lakka (U. S. Pub. No. 2022/0012738 A1).
As to claim 1. Mohrlock and Filsfils teach the newwork of claim 1. However, Mohrlock and Filsfils fail to expressly teach wherein receive the message from the first institution, through an interface processor.
In analogous teaching, Lakka teaches wherein receive the message from the first institution, through an interface processor (See FIG. 1 and ABSTRACT, “thereby enabling the interface processor to transmit an authorization request for the transaction to a banking institution associated with a sending party’s account [from the first institution] via a payment check”, read as receiving the message from the first institution through an interface processor).
Lakka teaches system and methods for use in facilitating network transactions. Filsfils teaches method and apparatus of dynamic route tagging. Mohrlock teaches computer message routing and processing system and method.
Thus, given the teaching of Lakka, it 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 to combine the teaching of Lakka into Filsfils and Mohrlock for method and system of fund transfer routing management. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have been advantageous to modify teaching of Filsfils and Mohrlock with teaching of Lakka (See ¶[0012], “a payment transaction may be initiated by the individual user at the merchant through a third party, via a transaction originator where the third party initiator, in turn, interacts with an originating banking institution on behalf of the transaction originator (or more particularly an interface processor associated with the originating banking institution)”). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to use the method and system for fund transaction from different banking institution.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Fish et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11, 962,503 B1) teaches an edge synchronization platform that facilitates mesh network routing via dynamic routing tables. Slaughter et al. (U. S. Patent. No. 8,370,523 B1) teaches managing routing information for a computer network. Matsuhira et al. (U.S. Patent. No. 7,075,932 B2) teaches communication device including a static routing table, a dynamic routing table and a judging unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN FAN whose telephone number (571) 272-3345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wing Chan can be reached on (571) 272-7493. 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.
John Fan
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2441
/WING F CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2441