DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 18/856,253, filed 11 October 2024, with a preliminary amendment filed concurrently. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a system which consists only of a “cross-border settlement orchestrator”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this includes software per se, and nothing in the originally filed application requires more. Software per se is a list of instructions, which is neither a process, machine, manufacture, nor a composition of matter.
To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests explicitly incorporating hardware, e.g. a processor and memory, such that the hardware is clearly within the scope of the claimed system.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 9-20 lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process) or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture); claims 1-8 do not, as has been addressed above.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving a “payment message” including an amount in a first currency, sending this information, converting the amount from the first currency to another currency, sending this information, and receiving a response. This recites changing from one currency to another, which is both a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract.
Further, this recites human mental work. People have been converting from one currency to another for many centuries, long before there was any such thing as a computer; in fact, “money changers” appear in the Christian Bible1, which was written well over a millenium ago. Converting currency and exchanging information are human, mental tasks of long standing; none of what is claimed presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology at all.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic, networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate information about currencies, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such information, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claim 17, which has the most, includes a medium storing instructions for execution by a processor and, at least implicitly, access to some kind of network. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality, and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice.
It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – that is, a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 3, 10, 11 and 18 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter. Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 6, 14 and 19 simply recite further transmission and reception of dat. Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 simply allow other entities to access information, and claim 20 simply accesses information.
The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection.
For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reuter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0122317).
With regard to Claim 1:
A system for orchestrating financial transfer systems, [0007; “provide institutional investors with the ability to quickly engage in foreign exchange transactions with a suitable financial service provider”; 0009; the system is “embodied as computer executable program code residing on a computer-readable medium”; 0015; the process is performed by a “server”] comprising:
a cross-border settlement orchestrator configured to:
receive an electronic payment message (MSG-1) from a first financial transfer system, the electronic payment message (MSG-1) including a first amount of a first payment in a first currency; [0008; it receives a price; 0021; the price may be to “exchange a specific amount from one currency to another”]
send the electronic payment message (MSG-1) to a first facilitator system; [0016; such messages are sent to other systems]
convert the electronic payment message (MSG-1) to a converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) according to an exchange rate between the first currency and a second currency, the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) including a second amount of a converted payment in the second currency and the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to be communicated to a destination account provider system; [0036; “exchange 1 million US dollars for a quantity of Euros, dependent on the exchange rate”; 0037; this information is included in a “message body” which is to be sent]
send the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to a second facilitator system; [id.]
receive a first electronic response message (RMSG-1) from the first facilitator system and a second electronic response message (RMSG-2) from the second facilitator system, the first electronic response message (RMSG-1) responding to the electronic payment message (MSG-1) sent to the first facilitator system and the second electronic response message (RMSG-2) responding to the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) sent to the second facilitator system; [0039; the “trading interface server” validates a message and “passes at least the relevant message data” to another module which receives the data and prepares a return response]
when the first electronic response message (RMSG-1) includes information accepting the electronic payment message (MSG-1) and the second electronic response message (RMSG-2) includes information accepting the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1), send the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to a second financial transfer system; [0008; acceptances are received regarding such a payment; 0042; an acceptance is received related to a transaction status]
receive a third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system in response to the converted electronic payment message (CMSG- 1); [Sheet 2, Fig 2; notification is sent regarding fulfillment of an order]
send a second electronic confirmation message (CONF-2) to the second facilitator system, the second electronic confirmation message (CONF-2) confirming that the second financial transfer system has settled the converted payment; [0054; a message includes a settlement date]
send the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to the first financial transfer system, the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to be communicated to the source account provider system; [0055; additional data are sent]
receive a first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) from the first financial transfer system, the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) confirming that the first financial transfer system has settled the first payment; and
send the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) to the first facilitator system. [Claim 1; post-transaction dialog takes place between systems]
In this and the subsequent claims, referring to a software component or subcomponent by name, such as “cross-border settlement orchestrator”, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. Similarly, referring to messages by labels such as “MSG-1”, “CMSG-1”, and the like, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. Referring to external devices as a “first facilitator system”, “second financial transfer system”, and the like, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight beyond “system”. The content of information which is merely transmitted or displayed and then not further processed by the claimed system, such as “a second electronic confirmation message”, consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the claimed substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Information about data which is received but not manipulated consist entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, meaningful only to the human mind but which impart neither structure nor functionality to any claimed embodiment. Steps performed by external, unclaimed devices are considered but given no patentable weight as being outside the scope of the claimed invention. That a message is “to be communicated to the source account provider system” is merely a statement of intended use which is considered but given no patentable weight. References are provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, the cross-border settlement orchestrator further configured to cause, by sending the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1), the destination account provider system to accept the converted payment of the second amount in the second currency, generate the third electronic response message (RMSG- 3), and communicate the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to the second financial transfer system, thereby indicating to the second financial transfer system that the destination account provider system accepts the converted payment of the second amount in the second currency to be settled by the second financial transfer system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. The content of information merely transmitted or displayed consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Steps performed by external, unclaimed systems are outside the scope of the invention and so are considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 3:
The system of claim 2, the cross-border settlement orchestrator further configured to cause, by sending the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to the first financial transfer system, the first financial transfer system(104) to settle the first payment of the first amount in the first currency to the first facilitator system from the source account provider system, and send the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) to the cross-border settlement orchestrator.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 2. The content of information merely transmitted or displayed consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Steps performed by external, unclaimed systems are outside the scope of the invention and so are considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 4:
The system of claim 1, wherein the electronic payment message (MSG-1) includes a quote for the exchange rate between the first currency and the second currency, the quote having been provided by the first facilitator system to the source account provider system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data and a step performed by an external, unclaimed object, each of which is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 5:
The system of claim 4, the electronic payment message (MSG-1) further including a token identifying the quote, wherein the token includes the exchange rate between the first currency and the second currency, an expiration date of the quote, and a routing path of the quote, the routing path associating the quote with the first facilitator system and the second facilitator system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 6:
The system of claim 1, the cross- border settlement orchestrator further configured to:
receive a first electronic recon message (REC-1) from the first financial transfer system when the first financial transfer system receives the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), the first electronic recon message (REC-1) being configured to acknowledge that the first financial transfer system receives the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the cross-border settlement orchestrator;
send the first electronic recon message (REC-1) to the first facilitator system; and
send a second electronic recon message (REC-2) to the second facilitator system upon receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), [Reuter, as cited above in regard to claim 1; communications take place between the various computers] the second electronic recon message (REC-2) being configured to acknowledge receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, which already claims an inter-system dialog; adding additional dialog, none of which is processed in any way by the claimed system, consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts which produces no new and unexpected result and so is considered but given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). That a message is “configured to acknowledge receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 7:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a liquidity provision system, the liquidity provision system configured to be accessed by the first facilitator system and the second facilitator system. [Reuter as cited above in regard to claim 1; other systems can access the main system, and do so]
Referring to a software subcomponent as a “liquidity provision system” is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 8:
The system of claim 7, wherein the liquidity provision system is accessed by the first facilitator system and the second facilitator system using a blockchain system. [id.]
As neither the first facilitator system, the second facilitator system nor the blockchain system is within the scope of the claim, that they interact is outside the scope of the claimed invention and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Further, referring to some unknown object as a “blockchain system”, without more, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 9:
A method for orchestrating financial transfer systems, comprising:
receiving, by a cross-border settlement orchestrator, an electronic payment message (MSG-1) from a first financial transfer system, the electronic payment message (MSG-1) including a first amount of a first payment in a first currency; [0008; it receives a price; 0021; the price may be to “exchange a specific amount from one currency to another”]
sending the electronic payment message (MSG-1) to a first facilitator system; [0016; such messages are sent to other systems]
converting the electronic payment message (MSG-1) to a converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) according to an exchange rate between the first currency and a second currency, the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) including a second amount of a converted payment in the second currency and the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to be communicated to a destination account provider system; [0036; “exchange 1 million US dollars for a quantity of Euros, dependent on the exchange rate”; 0037; this information is included in a “message body” which is to be sent]
sending the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to a second facilitator system; [id.]
receiving a first electronic response message (RMSG-1) from the first facilitator system and a second electronic response message (RMSG-2) from the second facilitator system, the first electronic response message (RMSG-1) responding to the electronic payment message (MSG-1) sent to the first facilitator system and the second electronic response message (RMSG-2) responding to the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) sent to the second facilitator system; [0039; the “trading interface server” validates a message and “passes at least the relevant message data” to another module which receives the data and prepares a return response]
when the first electronic response message (RMSG-1) includes information accepting the electronic payment message (MSG-1) and the second electronic response message (RMSG-2) includes information accepting the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1), sending the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to a second financial transfer system; [0008; acceptances are received regarding such a payment; 0042; an acceptance is received related to a transaction status]
receiving a third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system in response to the converted electronic payment message (CMSG- 1); [Sheet 2, Fig 2; notification is sent regarding fulfillment of an order]
sending a second electronic confirmation message (CONF-2) to the second facilitator system, the second electronic confirmation message (CONF-2) confirming that the second financial transfer system has settled the converted payment; [0054; a message includes a settlement date]
sending the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to the first financial transfer system, the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to be communicated to the source account provider system; [0055; additional data are sent]
receiving a first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) from the first financial transfer system, the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) confirming that the first financial transfer system has settled the first payment; and
sending the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) to the first facilitator system. [Claim 1; post-transaction dialog takes place between systems]
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 9, further comprising:
sending, by the cross-border settlement orchestrator, the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to cause the destination account provider system to accept the converted payment of the second amount in the second currency, generate the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), and communicate the third electronic response message (RMSG- 3) to the second financial transfer system, thereby indicating to the second financial transfer system that the destination account provider system accepts the converted payment of the second amount in the second currency to be settled by the second financial transfer system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 9, which already sends data. The content of information merely transmitted or displayed consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The “to cause” language consists entirely of intended-use language which is considered but given no patentable weight. The “thereby indicating” language consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most a content or purpose of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
sending, by the cross-border settlement orchestrator, the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to cause the first financial transfer system to settle the first payment of the first amount in the first currency to the first facilitator system from the source account provider system, and send the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) to the cross-border settlement orchestrator.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 9, which already sends data. The content of information merely transmitted or displayed consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The “to cause” language consists entirely of intended-use language which is considered but given no patentable weight. Sending additional data, without more, is a mere duplication of parts, of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 9, wherein the electronic payment message (MSG-1) includes a quote for the exchange rate between the first currency and the second currency, the quote having been provided by the first facilitator system to the source account provider system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 9 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data and a step performed outside of the claimed method, each of which is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 13:
The method of claim 12, the electronic payment message (MSG-1) further including a token identifying the quote, wherein the token includes the exchange rate between the first currency and the second currency, an expiration date of the quote, and a routing path of the quote, the routing path associating the quote with the first facilitator system and the second facilitator system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 12 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 14:
The method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, by the cross-border settlement orchestrator, a first electronic recon message (REC-1) from the first financial transfer system when the first financial transfer system receives the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), the first electronic recon message (REC-1) being configured to acknowledge that the first financial transfer system receives the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the cross-border settlement orchestrator;
sending, by the cross-border settlement orchestrator, the first electronic recon message (REC-1) to the first facilitator system; and
sending, by the cross-border settlement orchestrator, a second electronic recon message (REC-2) to the second facilitator system upon receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), [Reuter, as cited above in regard to claim 1; communications take place between the various computers] the second electronic recon message (REC-2) being configured to acknowledge receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 9, which already claims an inter-system dialog; adding additional dialog, none of which is processed in any way by the claimed system, consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts which produces no new and unexpected result and so is considered but given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). That a message is “configured to acknowledge receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 15:
The method of any one of the preceding claims 9 to 14 claim 9, further comprising accessing a liquidity provision system by the first facilitator system- and the second facilitator system. [Reuter as cited above in regard to claim 1; other systems can access the main system, and do so]
Referring to a software subcomponent as a “liquidity provision system” is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 16:
The method of claim 15, wherein the liquidity provision system is accessed by the first facilitator system and the second facilitator system using a blockchain system. [id.]
Referring to some unknown object as a “blockchain system”, without more, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 17:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors [0007; “provide institutional investors with the ability to quickly engage in foreign exchange transactions with a suitable financial service provider”; 0009; the system is “embodied as computer executable program code residing on a computer-readable medium”; 0015; the process is performed by a “server”] to perform:
receiving, by a cross-border settlement orchestrator, an electronic payment message (MSG-1) from a first financial transfer system, the electronic payment message (MSG-1) including a first amount of a first payment in a first currency; [0008; it receives a price; 0021; the price may be to “exchange a specific amount from one currency to another”]
sending the electronic payment message (MSG-1) to a first facilitator system; [0016; such messages are sent to other systems]
converting the electronic payment message (MSG-1) to a converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) according to an exchange rate between the first currency and a second currency, the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) including a second amount of a converted payment in the second currency and the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to be communicated to a destination account provider system; [0036; “exchange 1 million US dollars for a quantity of Euros, dependent on the exchange rate”; 0037; this information is included in a “message body” which is to be sent]
sending the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to a second facilitator system; [id.]
receiving a first electronic response message (RMSG-1) from the first facilitator system and a second electronic response message (RMSG-2) from the second facilitator system, the first electronic response message (RMSG-1) responding to the electronic payment message (MSG-1) sent to the first facilitator system and the second electronic response message (RMSG-2) responding to the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) sent to the second facilitator system; [0039; the “trading interface server” validates a message and “passes at least the relevant message data” to another module which receives the data and prepares a return response]
when the first electronic response message (RMSG-1) includes information accepting the electronic payment message (MSG-1) and the second electronic response message (RMSG-2) includes information accepting the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1), sending the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to a second financial transfer system; [0008; acceptances are received regarding such a payment; 0042; an acceptance is received related to a transaction status]
receiving a third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system in response to the converted electronic payment message (CMSG- 1); [Sheet 2, Fig 2; notification is sent regarding fulfillment of an order]
sending a second electronic confirmation message (CONF-2) to the second facilitator system, the second electronic confirmation message (CONF-2) confirming that the second financial transfer system has settled the converted payment; [0054; a message includes a settlement date]
sending the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to the first financial transfer system, the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to be communicated to the source account provider system; [0055; additional data are sent]
receiving a first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) from the first financial transfer system, the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) confirming that the first financial transfer system has settled the first payment; and
sending the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1) to the first facilitator system. [Claim 1; post-transaction dialog takes place between systems]
With regard to Claim 18:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to further perform:
sending the converted electronic payment message (CMSG-1) to cause the destination account provider system to accept the converted payment of the second amount in the second currency, generate the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), and communicate the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to the second financial transfer system, thereby indicating to the second financial transfer system that the destination account provider system accepts the converted payment of the second amount in the second currency to be settled by the second financial transfer system; and
sending the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) to cause the first financial transfer system to settle the first payment of the first amount in the first currency to the first facilitator system from the source account provider system and reply with the first electronic confirmation message (CONF-1).
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 17, which already sends data. The content of information merely transmitted or displayed consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The “to cause” language consists entirely of intended-use language which is considered but given no patentable weight. The “thereby indicating” language consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most a content or purpose of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Sending additional data, without more, is a mere duplication of parts, of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 19:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to further perform:
receiving a first electronic recon message (REC-1) from the first financial transfer system when the first financial transfer system receives the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), the first electronic recon message (REC-1) being configured to acknowledge that the first financial transfer system receives the third electronic response message (RMSG-3);
sending the first electronic recon message (REC-1) to the first facilitator system; and
sending a second electronic recon message (REC-2) to the second facilitator system upon receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3), [Reuter, as cited above in regard to claim 1; communications take place between the various computers] the second electronic recon message (REC-2) being configured to acknowledge receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 17, which already claims an inter-system dialog; adding additional dialog, none of which is processed in any way by the claimed system, consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts which produces no new and unexpected result and so is considered but given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). That a message is “configured to acknowledge receiving the third electronic response message (RMSG-3) from the second financial transfer system” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 20:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to further perform accessing a liquidity provision system using a blockchain system. [Reuter as cited above in regard to claim 1; other systems can access the main system, and do so]
Referring to some unknown object as a “blockchain system”, without more, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (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 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 See e.g. King James Version, John 2:15-16
Prosecution Insights