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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-24 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejections are based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejections are appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA '25, or PTO/AIA '26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/fil e/efs/g uid ance/e TD-info-1.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-24 non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of US. Patent No. 12118566. This is a non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the instant application are found in the US. Patent No. 12118566.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method, independent claim 8 recites a transaction exchange platform, independent claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, step 1 is satisfied for claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-24.
Step 2A Prong One:
The claim(s) recite(s) mental process steps of:
determining, by a screening microservice of a streaming data platform associated with the transaction exchange platform, whether the first transaction object is a duplicate payment transaction by comparing the first transaction details to a data structure comprising transaction details of a plurality of payment transactions; (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of determining whether the first transaction object is a duplicate is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ).
in response to receiving the response, updating a workflow stage of the first transaction object to indicate that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated; (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of updating a workflow stage of the first transaction object is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ).
removing, by the screening microservice and based on the workflow stage indicating that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated, the first transaction object from the streaming data platform. (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of deleting the first transaction object is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The claim/s recites the combination of the additional elements, the additional elements in the claim are:
receiving, by a transaction exchange platform, a first transaction object corresponding to a first payment transaction, wherein the first transaction object comprises first transaction details; (in claims 1, 8, 15)
based on a determination that the first transaction details overlap with second transaction details of a second payment transaction, sending, by the screening microservice to a first user device, a request inquiring whether the first payment transaction is a duplicate of the second payment transaction; (in claims 1, 8, 15)
receiving, by the screening microservice from the first user device, a response indicating that the first payment transaction is a duplicate of the second payment transaction; (in claims 1, 8, 15)
a streaming data platform; (in claim 8)
a plurality of microservices comprise a screening microservice; (in claim 8)
one or more processors; (in claim 8)
memory (in claim 8)
The bold elements above are directed to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data based on the abstract idea fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it does not differ from those actions that have previously been held to be extra-solution activity, such as “presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price”, “selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display”, and “requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access.” The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining additional elements amount to nothing more than generic components recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s) and insignificant extra-solution activity. These cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent-ineligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-24 directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more. The claims either recite an additional insignificant extra-solution activity OR recite an additional mental process to evaluate and judge using pen and paper. There are no additional elements recited in these claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same abstract idea as claim 1, 8 or 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20190347667 A1 (Hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Connor et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20230058933 A1 (Hereinafter “Connor”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a transaction exchange platform, a first transaction object corresponding to a first payment transaction, wherein the first transaction object comprises first transaction details (see paragraph [0010-0012], wherein multiple transactions can be compared, wherein a transaction includes timestamps and transaction ID. See also fig. 5);
determining, by a screening microservice of a streaming data platform associated with the transaction exchange platform (fig.2 one example of transaction exchange platform), whether the first transaction object is a duplicate payment transaction by comparing the first transaction details to a data structure comprising transaction details of a plurality of payment transactions (see paragraph [0010-0013], wherein multiple transactions can be compared to identify duplicates. See also fig. 5).
based on a determination that the first transaction details overlap with second transaction details of a second payment transaction, sending, by the screening microservice to a first user device, a request inquiring whether the first payment transaction is a duplicate of the second payment transaction (see paragraph [0167], wherein generate and communicate a duplicate transaction response message to the requesting device 42. The duplicate transaction response message may include data that identifies the second transaction data as identical to the first transaction data. The duplicate transaction response message may indicate that the second transaction data was not processed because it was previously processed as the first transaction data. The duplicate transaction response message may be identical to the transaction response message sent to the requesting device 42 after processing the first transaction data.);
removing, by the screening microservice and based on the workflow stage indicating that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated, the first transaction object from the streaming data platform (see paragraph [0167] and fig.5 step 138, wherein terminate processing of the duplicate payment transaction).
Zhang fails to explicitly discloses the limitations below.
Connor discloses receiving, by the screening microservice from the first user device, a response indicating that the first payment transaction is a duplicate of the second payment transaction (see paragraph [0004-0005], wherein the notification requires the user to select between modifying one or more attributes of the payment request or cancelling the payment request.);
in response to receiving the response, updating a workflow stage of the first transaction object to indicate that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated (see paragraph [0004-0005], wherein the notification requires the user to select between modifying one or more attributes of the payment request or cancelling the payment request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang to incorporate the missing limitation, as taught by Connor, since doing so would allow the system to improve accuracy and user oversight in the context automated financial systems (see Connor [0024-0025]).
Note:
Zhang did discloses preventing duplicate processing of a payment transaction includes: generating a first data structure with a first predetermined time interval and generating a second data structure with a second predetermined time interval. A first overlap region and second overlap region of the first and second predetermined time interval are defined by a same time interval. The method includes receiving first transaction data associated with a first payment transaction, receiving second transaction data associated with a second payment transaction, and determining based on a first transaction ID and a second transaction ID, that the second payment transaction is a duplicate of the first payment transaction. A computer program product and system for preventing duplicate (e.g. deleting) processing of a payment transaction. (abstract)
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Connor further disclose querying, by the screening microservice and via an application programming interface, the data structure to determine the transaction details of the plurality of payment transactions (Zhang, see paragraph [0010-0012], wherein multiple transactions can be compared, wherein a transaction includes timestamps and transaction ID. See also fig. 5. See also Connor paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Connor further disclose wherein the determination that the first transaction details overlap with the second transaction details comprises: determining that a number of the first transaction details match a number of the second transaction details, wherein the number is greater than or equal to a threshold (Zhang, see paragraph [0010-0012]. See also fig. 5. See also Connor paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Connor further disclose generating, based on a determination that the second payment transaction is frequently duplicated, one or more rules to automate payment for the second payment transaction (Zhang, see paragraph [0010-0012]. See also fig. 5. See also Connor paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Connor further disclose receiving a third transaction object corresponding to a third payment transaction, wherein the third transaction object comprises third transaction details (Zhang see paragraph [0010, 0020, 0049-0050]);
determining, by the screening microservice, whether the third transaction object is a duplicate payment transaction by comparing the third transaction details to the data structure (Zhang see paragraph [0010-0013, 0020, 0049-0050]);
and based on a determination that the third transaction details do not overlap with the transaction details of the plurality of payment transactions, adding the third transaction object to a streaming data platform associated with a transaction exchange platform (Zhang see paragraph [0010, 0020, 0049-0050].).
Claims 8-9, 12-14 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-2 and 5-7.
Claims 15-16 and 19-21 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-2 and 5-7.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang in view of Connor further disclose wherein the updating the workflow stage of the first transaction object to indicate that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated further comprises: appending a suffix to the first transaction object indicating that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated, (Connor, paragraph [0004-0005], wherein the notification requires the user to select between modifying one or more attributes of the payment request or cancelling the payment request)).
Claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 22.
Claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 22.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20190347667 A1 (Hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Connor et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20230058933 A1 (Hereinafter “Connor”) and further in view of BHATNAGAR et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20200104587 A1 (Hereinafter “BHATNAGAR”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Connor fail to explicitly disclose the limitation below.
BHATNAGAR discloses wherein determining whether the first transaction object is a duplicate payment transaction uses one or more machine learning models (BHATNAGAR, see paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang in view of Connor to incorporate the missing limitation, as taught by BHATNAGAR, since doing so would allow the system to improve accuracy and user oversight in the context automated financial systems. Further, improving security of the data, which decreases the risk of the computer or network from being compromised (see BHATNAGAR [0017]).
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
162
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(1) Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A Prong One:
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business process—specifically the, determining/s, deleting steps. The Applicant's assertion that the claims are not a "mental process" because the human mind is "not equipped" to perform the claimed functions is unconvincing. The underlying steps of “updating a workflow stage of the first transaction object to indicate that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated” and “removing, by the screening microservice and based on the workflow stage indicating that processing of the first transaction object should be terminated, the first transaction object from the streaming data platform” are analogous to tasks performed by human analysts. Updating and/or removing data are known business practice, even with a computer, does not automatically render the process patent-eligible.
(2) Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image3.png
246
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(2) Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A Prong One (Technical Improvement and Inventive Concept):
The Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical improvement by "improving the overall functionality of the transaction exchange platform". However, this claimed improvement is a functional result or economic benefit of performing the abstract idea more efficiently (which is solely an improved abstract idea), not a technical improvement to the computer's operation itself (not an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to the technology). The applicant recites paragraphs [0006, 0010-0013, 0015-0016, 0213-0214, 0218-0219 and 0303] in the remarks to show the improvements.
However, as stated in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and since there is no explicit test for what is an improvement, the evaluation should be guided by:
(1) the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
(2) if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
The first part of this is in terms of evaluating the spec is also restated in MPEP 2106.05(a):
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, paragraphs [0006, 0013, 0010-0012, 0015-0016, 0213-0214, 0218-0219 and 0303] described some improvements, but nothing in the paragraphs reflect the operations/steps in the claim.
Furthermore, the Applicant's reliance on BASCOM is misplaced. The claims at hand do not demonstrate the inventive, non-generic arrangement of conventional elements found to be patent-eligible in BASCOM. The elements—a streaming data platform, microservices, and databases—are well-known in the art and perform their conventional functions. The claims describe a conventional client-server architecture with distributed microservices processing data from a stream. The claimed combination does not "amount to significantly more because of the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provided a technical improvement in the art". The claims merely instruct a generic computer to apply an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but now are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0718. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1264.
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.
/MAHER N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2165