DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is responsive to: Application filed 19 Jun. 2024
Claims 1-7 and 11-23 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Britt (Pub. No.: US 2012/0290609 A1; Filed: May 11, 2011).
Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 18, Britt disclose a method for checking message, comprising:
obtaining an actual message that is generated by a payment application during a transaction
process (0035; 0038; 0040; 0042; 0046; 0068);
parsing the actual message, and obtaining a corresponding message parsing result (0035; 0038; 0040; 0042; 0044; 0046; 0068);
obtaining an expected message corresponding to the actual message (0035; 0038; 0040; 0042; 0044; 0046; 0068);
checking the message parsing result according to a value of each field of the expected
message (0028; 0042; 0139-0142).
Regarding dependent claims 6, 16 and 23, Britt disclose the method according to claims 1, 11 and 18 respectively, wherein parsing the actual message comprises:
parsing the actual message according to a data format defined in the configuration file by invoking an interface that is used to parse the message (0031; 0051-0052; 0056; 0070).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 17, Britt disclose the method according to claims 1 and 11 respectively, further comprising:
obtaining a value of a specified field from the message parsing result by invoking a specified field interface of the message (0051-0053; 0063);
executing a special transaction of the payment application according to the value of the specified field (0051-0053; 0063).
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, 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 2, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt (Pub. No.: US 2012/0290609 A1; Filed: May 11, 2011) in view of O’Connell et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0304648 A1; Filed: May 8, 2013)(hereinafter “O’Connell”).
Regarding dependent claims 2, 12 and 19, Britt disclose the method according to claims 1, 11 and 18 respectively, wherein checking the message parsing result according to a value of each field of the expected message comprises:
determining a verification result of each field of the expected message of the message parsing result according to the value of each field (0038; 0063; 0118);
Britt does not expressly disclose determining that a verification result of the message parsing result is valid in response that the verification results of all fields of the expected message of the message parsing result are valid;
determining that the verification result of the message parsing result is invalid in response that the expected message has at least one field whose verification result in the message parsing result is invalid.
O’Connell teach determining that a verification result of the message parsing result is valid in response that the verification results of all fields of the expected message of the message parsing result are valid (0043; 0048, 0100);
determining that the verification result of the message parsing result is invalid in response that the expected message has at least one field whose verification result in the message parsing result is invalid (0043; 0048; 0100).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine O’Connell with Britt for the benefit of efficently performing some or all the functionality associated with authorizing a financial transaction associated with an authorization request message.
Claims 3, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt (Pub. No.: US 2012/0290609 A1; Filed: May 11, 2011) in view of O’Connell, further in view of Subbarayan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0262842 A1; Filed: May 14, 2016)(hereinafter “Subbarayan ”).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 13 and 20, Britt in view of O’Connell disclose the method according to claims 2, 12 and 19 respectively, wherein determining a verification result of each field of the expected message of the message parsing result according to the value of each field comprises:
in response that the message parsing result comprises the first field, determining that the verification result of the first field in the message parsing result is valid (0043; 0048, 0100);
in response that the message parsing result does not comprise the first field, determining that
the verification result of the first field in the message parsing result is invalid (0043; 0048, 0100);
in response that the message parsing result does not comprise the second field, determining that the verification result of the second field in the message parsing result is valid (0043; 0048, 0100);
in response that the message parsing result has the second field, determining that the verification result of the second field in the message parsing result is invalid (0043; 0048, 0100);
in response that the message parsing result has the other field and the value of the other field in the expected message is consistent with the value of the other field in the message parsing result, determining that the verification result of the other field in the message parsing result is valid (0043; 0048, 0100);
in response that the message parsing result does not has the other field, or has the other field and the value of the other field in the expected message is inconsistent with the value of the other field in the message parsing result, determining that the verification result of the other field in the message parsing result is invalid (0043; 0048, 0100).
Subbarayan teach in response that a value of a certain field of the expected message is a first character, determining the certain field to be a first field, and determining whether the message parsing result has the first field, the first character indicating that the message parsing result needs to have the first field (0031; 0052; 0079);
in response that the value of the certain field of the expected message is a second character,
determining that the certain field is a second field, and determining whether the message parsing result does not have the second field, and the second character indicating that the message parsing result does not have the second field (0031; 0052; 0079);
in response that the value of the certain field in the expected message is a third character, skipping to determine whether the message parsing result has the field, and the third character indicating that a corresponding field is an optional field of the message parsing result (0031; 0052; 0079);
in response that the value of the certain field in the expected message is other character, determining that the certain field is other field, and determining whether the message parsing result has the other field, and in response that the message parsing result has the other field, determining whether a value of the other field in the expected message is consistent with the value of the other field in the message parsing result, and the other character representing a character except the first character, the second character and the third character (0031; 0052; 0079).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Subbarayan with Britt in view of O’Connell for the benefit of enable secure processing of payment transactions by reducing the number of entities that receive and store users' payment authorization numbers.
Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt (Pub. No.: US 2012/0290609 A1; Filed: May 11, 2011) in view of Subbarayan.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 14 and 21, Britt does not expressly disclose the method according to claims 1, 11 and 18 respectively, wherein obtaining an actual message that is generated by a payment application during a transaction process comprises:
obtaining a transaction log that is generated by the payment application during the transaction process; and
intercepting the actual message from the transaction log according to a first keyword and/or a second keyword using a preset regular expression, the first keyword indicating a start interception position of the message sent by the payment application during the transaction process, the second keyword indicating a start interception position of the message received by the payment application during the transaction process.
Subbarayan teach obtaining a transaction log that is generated by the payment application during the transaction process (0122; 0130; 0182); and
intercepting the actual message from the transaction log according to a first keyword and/or a second keyword using a preset regular expression, the first keyword indicating a start interception position of the message sent by the payment application during the transaction process, the second keyword indicating a start interception position of the message received by the payment application during the transaction process (0031; 0079).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Subbarayan with Britt for the benefit of enable secure processing of payment transactions by reducing the number of entities that receive and store users' payment authorization numbers.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 15 and 22, Britt does not expressly disclose the method according to claims 1, 11 and 18 respectively, wherein obtaining an expected message corresponding to the actual message comprises:
reading the expected message from a target document according to a third keyword, the third keyword representing a reading start position of the expected message, and the target document storing the expected message.
Subbarayan teach reading the expected message from a target document according to a third keyword, the third keyword representing a reading start position of the expected message, and the target document storing the expected message (0031; 0079; 0122; 0130; 0182).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Subbarayan with Britt for the benefit of enable secure processing of payment transactions by reducing the number of entities that receive and store users' payment authorization numbers.
NOTE
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J DEBROW whose telephone number is (571)272-5768. The examiner can normally be reached on 09:00 - 06:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/James J Debrow/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2174
571-272-5768
Prosecution Insights