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 in response to claims filed on 06/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “FIGS. 5A-5C” wherein Applicant’s specification discloses [00051] “…One or more components of FIGS. 5A-5C may be the same or similar to one or more other components disclosed hereby…”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “624” in Fig. 6A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "canceling the timer configured to trigger performance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no prior mention of “a timer”. Therefore, "canceling the timer configured to trigger performance" should read "canceling a timer configured to trigger performance".
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meyer Pub. No. US 2025/0247399 Al.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer anticipates the invention as claimed, including: A method comprising: identifying a request for an asynchronous operation corresponding to an entity object ([0045] “In step 204, an authorization request message may be generated by the resource provider computer 106. The authorization request message may include transaction information such as a transaction amount, a merchant identifier, date and time of the transaction, a location of the transaction, a transaction identifier, a credential such as an account identifier, a username and address, a phone number and any other relevant information…”, [0111] “The server computer 114 may include a network interface 402, a memory 404, a processor 406, a transaction activity database 408, an account history database 410 and a computer readable medium 412…”, [0114] “…The account history database 410 may store historical data associated with different payment accounts which may be used to generate a custom profile for each user such as each user's spending behavior…”, Note: The authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation, and each account is interpreted as an entity object), the entity object including a set of state-quantity values, and each state-quantity value including a quantity associated with a possible stage in a lifecycle of a corresponding entity ([0114] “…The account history database 410 may store historical data associated with different payment accounts which may be used to generate a custom profile for each user such as each user's spending behavior…” , Note: The authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation, each account is interpreted as an entity object, and each transaction is interpreted as a state-quantity value); determining a proposed state-quantity value based on the request for the asynchronous operation corresponding to the entity object ([0052] “…the value in the authorization request message…”, Note: The value in the authorization request message is interpreted as the proposed state-quantity value); generating an available state-quantity value based on at least a portion of the set of state-quantity values of the entity object ([0052] “…a value threshold (e.g., $25)…”, [0111] “The server computer 114 may include a network interface 402, a memory 404, a processor 406, a transaction activity database 408, an account history database 410 and a computer readable medium 412…”, [0115] …”In some embodiments, the activity monitor module 414 can set threshold indicators based on the monitored activity from the authorizing entity computer, as described above with respect to FIG. 2.”, [0116] “The threshold adjustment module 416 may be configured to generate and/or adjust one or more of the time and/or value thresholds described above…”, Note: The value threshold is interpreted as the available state-quantity value, each account is interpreted as an entity object, and each transaction is interpreted as a state-quantity value); and performing the asynchronous operation when a condition based on the proposed state-quantity value and the available state-quantity value is satisfied ([0052] “…In step 218, if the value in the authorization request message is below or equal to a value threshold (e.g., $25), the server computer 114 can authorize or decline the authorization request message using a set of stand-in processing rules. In step 220, the server computer can then generate and transmit the authorization response message responsive to the authorization request message to the resource provider computer 106.”, Note: The value in the authorization request message is interpreted as the proposed state-quantity value, the value threshold is interpreted as the available state-quantity value, and the authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation).
Regarding claim 2, Meyer anticipates: The method of claim 1, wherein the condition is satisfied when the proposed state-quantity value is less than or equal to the available state-quantity value ([0052] “…In step 218, if the value in the authorization request message is below or equal to a value threshold (e.g., $25), the server computer 114 can authorize or decline the authorization request message using a set of stand-in processing rules. In step 220, the server computer can then generate and transmit the authorization response message responsive to the authorization request message to the resource provider computer 106.”, Note: The value in the authorization request message is interpreted as the proposed state-quantity value, and the value threshold is interpreted as the available state-quantity value).
Regarding claim 4, Meyer anticipates: The method of claim 1, further comprising blocking performance of the asynchronous operation when the condition is not satisfied when the proposed state-quantity value is larger than the available state-quantity value ([0053] “In step 214, if the value in the authorization request message is above the value threshold, then the server computer 114 can continue waiting for an authorization response message from the authorizing entity computer 112 for a period of time…”, Note: The authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer anticipates: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a proposed timing condition associated with the asynchronous operation ([0048] “…The server computer 114 in the processing network 110 can also start a timer after the authorization request message is transmitted to the authorizing entity computer 112. The server computer 114 can also store timer thresholds and value thresholds associated with various authorizing entity computers…”, Note: The time threshold is interpreted as the proposed timing condition, and the authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation); updating the entity object to include a timing condition corresponding to the proposed timing condition, and a pending state-quantity value corresponding to the proposed state-quantity value and associated with a particular stage in the lifecycle of the corresponding entity ([0048] “…The server computer 114 in the processing network 110 can store data relating to the transmitted authorization request message in a temporary data storage, so that it can be matched to a corresponding authorization response message that is received from the authorizing entity computer 112. The server computer 114 in the processing network 110 can also start a timer after the authorization request message is transmitted to the authorizing entity computer 112. The server computer 114 can also store timer thresholds and value thresholds associated with various authorizing entity computers…”, Note: The value in the authorization request message is interpreted as the proposed state-quantity value, and the time threshold is interpreted as the proposed timing condition); and performing the asynchronous operation when the proposed timing condition based on the proposed state-quantity value and the available state-quantity value is satisfied ([0052] “In some cases, the server computer 114 can determine that an authorization response message in reply to the authorization request message has not been received and that a time since the authorization request message was transmitted exceeds the time threshold. In step 218, if the value in the authorization request message is below or equal to a value threshold (e.g., $25), the server computer 114 can authorize or decline the authorization request message using a set of stand-in processing rules. In step 220, the server computer can then generate and transmit the authorization response message responsive to the authorization request message to the resource provider computer 106.”, Note: The value in the authorization request message is interpreted as the proposed state-quantity value, the value threshold is interpreted as the available state-quantity value, the time threshold is interpreted as the proposed timing condition, and the authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer anticipates: The method of claim 5, further comprising: determining performance of the asynchronous operation was successful (“…In step 220, the server computer can then generate and transmit the authorization response message responsive to the authorization request message to the resource provider computer 106.”); and updating the entity object to include a non-pending state-quantity value corresponding to the proposed state-quantity value and associated with the particular stage in the lifecycle of the corresponding entity in response to determining performance of the asynchronous operation was successful ([0114] “…The transaction activity database 408 may store an authorizing entity's (e.g., issuer, processor or another entity) transaction activity data over time which may be used to determine a baseline for the authorizing entity. The account history database 410 may store historical data associated with different payment accounts which may be used to generate a custom profile for each user such as each user's spending behavior. It may also include a short term database which stores transaction data associated with transactions in which authorization request messages have been sent to authorizing entity computers, but for which authorization response messages for them have not yet been received. It may also store advice messages that are being temporarily held until the authorizing entity computer is operating normally.”, [0115] “…In some embodiments, the transaction activity of a plurality of transactions may be stored in the transaction activity database 408 to determine a baseline behavior of the authorizing entity computer 112…”, Note: Each account is interpreted as an entity object, and each transaction is interpreted as a state-quantity value which must be stored when authorization of a transaction is granted in order to track historical data of different accounts).
Regarding claim 9, Meyer further anticipates: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising ([0023] “A "memory" may be any suitable device or devices that can store electronic data. A suitable memory may comprise a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that can be executed by a processor to implement a desired method…”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Meyer further teaches a server computer system, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory configured to ([0023] “A "memory" may be any suitable device or devices that can store electronic data. A suitable memory may comprise a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that can be executed by a processor to implement a desired method…”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer Pub. No. US 2025/0247399 Al as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 above, in view of Chopra et al. Pat. No. US 11,854,007 B2 (hereafter Chopra).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer teaches the method of claim 2.
Meyer fails to teach wherein the proposed state-quantity value includes a reversal quantity and the available state-quantity value includes an authorized quantity minus a cleared quantity.
In analogous art Chopra teaches wherein the proposed state-quantity value includes a reversal quantity and the available state-quantity value includes an authorized quantity minus a cleared quantity (Col. 17 lines 60-65: “If the authorization amount is less than the pre-authorization amount, authorizing entity computer 460 can release a portion of the hold equal to the difference between the authorization amount and the pre-authorization amount (e.g., to release the value for the resources being returned).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer to incorporate the teachings of Chopra to improve user's comfort and experience when transacting (Chopra Col. 23 lines 23-25: “Embodiments of the invention also advantageously improve the user's comfort and experience because the user gains more control over the transaction process.”).
Claims 7-8, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer Pub. No. US 2025/0247399 Al as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 above, in view of Banguero et al. Pub. No. US 2011/0202924 Al (hereafter Banguero).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the request for the asynchronous operation includes a first request for a first asynchronous operation, and the method further comprising: performing the first asynchronous operation when the proposed timing condition is satisfied ([0052] “In some cases, the server computer 114 can determine that an authorization response message in reply to the authorization request message has not been received and that a time since the authorization request message was transmitted exceeds the time threshold. In step 218, if the value in the authorization request message is below or equal to a value threshold (e.g., $25), the server computer 114 can authorize or decline the authorization request message using a set of stand-in processing rules. In step 220, the server computer can then generate and transmit the authorization response message responsive to the authorization request message to the resource provider computer 106.”, Note: The time threshold is interpreted as the proposed timing condition, and the authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation).
Meyer fails to teach receiving a second request for a second asynchronous operation corresponding to the entity object prior to a determination the first asynchronous operation was successful; and responding to the second request by requesting the second request be resubmitted.
In analogous art Banguero teaches receiving a second request for a second asynchronous operation corresponding to the entity object prior to a determination the first asynchronous operation was successful ([0040] “Asynchronous execution of multiple tasks is initiated (block 402). For example, a request to load a webpage 112 in FIG.1 may include first and second tasks. Both the first task and the second task may have associated timeouts (e.g., a first timeout and a second timeout, respectively) that determine the amount of time allowed for each task to execute…”); and responding to the second request by requesting the second request be resubmitted ([0043] “Serial execution of two or more asynchronous tasks in a set of tasks is enabled (block 502). This may involve delaying execution of one task until execution of another task and dependencies of the other task is completed (block 504)…”, Note: The second asynchronous task waits and is resubmitted to execute after the first asynchronous task completes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer to incorporate the teachings of Banguero to reduce the overall time required by implementing parallel task execution (Banguero [0013] “Asynchronous task techniques are described. In an implementation, tasks may be initiated and executed asynchronously, thereby allowing a plurality of calls to be made in parallel and which may reduce the overall time it takes to perform the tasks, such as to render a page…”).
Regarding claim 8, Meyer teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the request for the asynchronous operation includes a first request for a first asynchronous operation ([0052] “…the authorization request message…”, Note: The authorization request is interpreted as the asynchronous operation).
Meyer fails to teach the method further comprising: receiving a second request for a second asynchronous operation corresponding to the entity object prior to the proposed timing condition being satisfied; and canceling the timer configured to trigger performance of the first asynchronous operation based on the second asynchronous operation.
In analogous art Banguero teaches the method further comprising: receiving a second request for a second asynchronous operation corresponding to the entity object prior to the proposed timing condition being satisfied ([0040] “Asynchronous execution of multiple tasks is initiated (block 402). For example, a request to load a webpage 112 in FIG.1 may include first and second tasks. Both the first task and the second task may have associated timeouts (e.g., a first timeout and a second timeout, respectively) that determine the amount of time allowed for each task to execute…”); and canceling the timer configured to trigger performance of the first asynchronous operation based on the second asynchronous operation ([0041] “…the first task may use the second task as a timeout extender. This will allow the first task to continue executing even though the first timeout is expired, but not past completion of the second task or expiration of the second timeout (block 406)…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer to incorporate the teachings of Banguero to reduce the overall time required by implementing parallel task execution (Banguero [0013] “Asynchronous task techniques are described. In an implementation, tasks may be initiated and executed asynchronously, thereby allowing a plurality of calls to be made in parallel and which may reduce the overall time it takes to perform the tasks, such as to render a page…”).
Regarding claim 13, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 20200349532 A1 is cited because it discloses updating a ledger containing transactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
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, April Y Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights