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 is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 18/902,376 filed on September 30, 2024 title: “Transaction System Transfer Techniques”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 09/30/2024 and is a DIV of US Application No. 17/895,630 filed on 08/25/2022. For the purpose of examination, the date 08/25/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. A copy of the PTO-1449 form with the examiner’s initials is enclosed to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is 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 rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 13-21 of co-pending Application No. 17/895,630 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims are broader than the reference claims in the co-pending Application and are anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the co-pending Application with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. Also, both the Application and the co-pending Application are directed to the same invention of managing transaction transfer operations by determining that the transaction medium has migrated from a first processing network to a second processing network. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 18/902,376
Application No. 17/895,630
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method comprising:
Claim 8, A computer-implemented method comprising:
initiating a system conversion from a first processing network to a second processing network by converting a subset of a plurality of transaction mediums to the second processing network, the plurality of transaction mediums asynchronously converted to the second processing network in batches;
receiving, by a second processing network, transaction information associated with one or more transactions of a first type from a first processing network, the transaction information obtained via an acquirer from one or more transactions of the first type at a transaction facilitator; and
receiving, by the first processing network, transaction information associated with one or more transactions of a first type from a transaction medium system, the one or more transactions of the first type being generated using a transaction medium of a remaining subset of the plurality of transaction mediums associated with the first processing network subsequent to initiating the system conversion from the first processing network to the second processing network;
validating, by a validation system of the first processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type by comparing an inputted value to a stored value;
determining, by the first processing network and based on communication from a management system of the second processing network, a migration status of the transaction medium used to generate the one or more transactions of the first type, the communication from the management system identifying the subset of the plurality of transaction mediums having a positive migration status;
determining, by the first processing network and based on the transaction medium having the positive migration status, that the transaction medium associated with the one or more transactions of the first type has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network;
completing, by a second transaction system in the second processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type.
subsequent to determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network, transferring, by the first processing network, the transaction information of the first type to the second processing network, the second processing network completing the one or more transactions of the first type such that the transaction medium remains functional subsequent to initiating the system conversion to the second processing network;
receiving, by the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type from the first processing network, the transaction information obtained via an acquirer from the one or more transactions of the first type at a transaction facilitator; and
determining, by an authorization system and based at least in part on information from the management system, whether to allow the one or more transactions; and
based on determining to allow the one or more transactions, generating, by the authorization system, a set of temporary entries corresponding to the one or more transactions, the set of temporary entries reserving a respective portion of available resources prior to batch processing of the one or more transactions.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-6 recite a computer-implemented method comprising a series of steps, claims 7-14 recite a system comprising processing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored instructions. Therefore, the claims ate directed to a process and a machine which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claim is statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a second processing network, transaction information associated with one or more transactions of a first type from a first processing network, the transaction information obtained via an acquirer from one or more transactions of the first type at a transaction facilitator; and
completing, by a second transaction system in the second processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a first processing network, a second processing network, an acquirer, a transaction facilitator, a second transaction system). More specifically, the claim is directed to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including managing transaction transfer operations by completing the transactions of the first type by a second transaction system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 1 is addressed above, the analysis can be applied to claim 7 where the system comprising a processing device and computer-readable medium with stored instructions and similar elements and limitations also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere nominal recitation of generic computer components do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, this claim also recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional elements of a first processing network, a second processing network, an acquirer, a transaction facilitator, a second transaction system. The additional computer elements all are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see at least in paragraphs 60-62 and Figure 7 of Publication No. 2025/0021975). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrate into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
The independent claims do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the receiving and completing functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14 depend on claims 1 and 7, and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims also are directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1 and 7.
Claim 2 includes additional elements “further comprising: receiving, by the second processing network, one or more transactions of a second type from a transaction medium system, the transaction information obtained by the acquirer from the one or more transactions of the second type at the transaction facilitator; and completing, by the second transaction system, the one or more transactions of the second type, wherein completing the one or more transactions of the second type further comprise: processing, by a network core in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the second type to generate one or more authorization posts; and receiving, by a second deposit system in the second processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the second type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the second processing network, second transaction system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 3 and 11 include additional elements “further comprising: obtaining, by an enterprise data management module (EDM) in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type before being completed by the second transaction system; determining a transaction amount in the transaction information exceeds a user-selected limit; and canceling the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the enterprise data management module in the second processing network. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 4 and 10 include additional elements “further comprising: obtaining, by enterprise data management module (EDM) in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type before being completed the second transaction system; determining the transaction facilitator is from a list of user-blocked merchants; and canceling the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the enterprise data management module. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 5 includes additional elements “further comprising: receiving, by the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type from a transaction medium system; determining that a transaction medium associated with the one or more transactions of the first type has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and transferring, by the first processing network, the transaction information of the first type to the second transaction system in the second processing network.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the first processing network. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 6 includes additional elements “further comprising: receiving, by the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type to generate one or more authorization posts; and receiving, by a first deposit system in the first processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the first processing network. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 8 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: receive, by the transaction medium system, transaction information of a second type from the acquirer, the transaction information associated with one or more transactions of the second type from the transaction facilitator; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information from the acquirer to the transaction system, the transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the second type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 9 includes additional elements “wherein the transaction system in the second processing network is a second transaction system, and wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: determine that the transaction medium of the first type has not migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information to a first transaction system in the first processing network, the first transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 12 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from the acquirer to a second transaction medium system; and transfer, by the second transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from a first transaction medium system to the transaction system, the transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system and the second transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 13 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: receive, by the transaction medium system, transaction information from the acquirer, the transaction information associated with one or more transactions from a foreign transaction facilitator; generate, by the transaction medium system, one or more settlement files associated with the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the one or more settlement files to a network core in the first processing network, the network core processing the one or more settlement files to generate one or more central files to send to the second processing network for completion of the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 14 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: transmit, by a network core in the first processing network, one or more record files to a batched process in the second processing network, wherein the one or more transactions are completed during the batched process.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by a network core in the first processing network. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. These additional recited limitations further narrow the scope of the abstract idea and are merely insignificant solution activities which only refine the abstract idea further and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions have been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1 and 7 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method of managing the operations of transaction transfer by determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network from the first processing network using a generic computing system with the programmed instructions. The claimed invention is “a business solution” to “a business problem” for solving the transaction conversions problems due to a merger an acquisition, or other suitable change to operation structures of companies, and is substantiated in Applicant’s Specification in paragraph 2. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Thus, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US Publication No. 2023/0179587, filed on 12/03/2021) (hereinafter “Wilson”).
As per Claim 1, Wilson teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a second processing network, transaction information associated with one or more transactions of a first type from a first processing network, the transaction information obtained via an acquirer from one or more transactions of the first type at a transaction facilitator (see Wilson, Abstract “… first processing network … second processing network …”, par. 7 “… wherein the access device transmits an authorization request message to a second processing network computer, which transmits a metadata request comprising the session identifier and/or the device identifier to a record server computer, receives metadata in response to the metadata request, and processes the transaction using the metadata.”, par. 35 “a “payment token” may include an identifier for a payment account”, par. 42 “… authorization request message …”); and
completing, by a second transaction system in the second processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type (see Wilson, par. 7 “… wherein the access device transmits an authorization request message to second processing network computer … and processes the transaction ...”).
As per Claim 2, Wilson further teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the second processing network, one or more transactions of a second type from a transaction medium system, the transaction information obtained by the acquirer from the one or more transactions of the second type at the transaction facilitator (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
completing, by the second transaction system, the one or more transactions of the second type, wherein completing the one or more transactions of the second type further comprise (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2):
processing, by a network core in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the second type to generate one or more authorization posts (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
receiving, by a second deposit system in the second processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the second type (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 3, Wilson further teaches further comprising:
obtaining, by an enterprise data management module (EDM) in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type before being completed by the second transaction system (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2);
determining a transaction amount in the transaction information exceeds a user-selected limit; and canceling the one or more transactions of the first type (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 4, Wilson further teaches further comprising:
obtaining, by enterprise data management module (EDM) in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type before being completed the second transaction system (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2);
determining the transaction facilitator is from a list of user-blocked merchants; and canceling the one or more transactions of the first type (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 5, Wilson further teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type from a transaction medium system (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2);
determining that a transaction medium associated with the one or more transactions of the first type has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
transferring, by the first processing network, the transaction information of the first type to the second transaction system in the second processing network (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 6, Wilson further teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type to generate one or more authorization posts (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
receiving, by a first deposit system in the first processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the first type (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 7, Wilson teaches a system comprising:
a processing device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
receive, by a transaction medium system, transaction information of a first type from an acquirer, the transaction information associated with one or more transactions of the first type made at a transaction facilitator using a transaction medium (see Wilson, Abstract “… first processing network … second processing network …”, par. 7 “… wherein the access device transmits an authorization request message to a second processing network computer, which transmits a metadata request comprising the session identifier and/or the device identifier to a record server computer, receives metadata in response to the metadata request, and processes the transaction using the metadata.”, par. 35 “a “payment token” may include an identifier for a payment account”, par. 42 “… authorization request message …”);
determine that the transaction medium has migrated from a first processing network to a second processing network (see Wilson, par. 7 “… wherein the access device transmits an authorization request message to second processing network computer ...”); and
transfer the transaction information of the first type to a transaction system in the second processing network, the transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type (see Wilson, par. 7 “… wherein the access device transmits an authorization request message to second processing network computer … and processes the transaction ...”).
As per Claim 8, Wilson further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
receive, by the transaction medium system, transaction information of a second type from the acquirer, the transaction information associated with one or more transactions of the second type from the transaction facilitator (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information from the acquirer to the transaction system, the transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the second type (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 9, Wilson further teaches wherein the transaction system in the second processing network is a second transaction system, and wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
determine that the transaction medium of the first type has not migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information to a first transaction system in the first processing network, the first transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 10, this written in system form corresponds to claim 4 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 4.
As per Claim 11, this written in system form corresponds to claim 3 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 3.
As per Claim 12, Wilson further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from the acquirer to a second transaction medium system (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
transfer, by the second transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from a first transaction medium system to the transaction system, the transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 13, Wilson further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
receive, by the transaction medium system, transaction information from the acquirer, the transaction information associated with one or more transactions from a foreign transaction facilitator (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2);
generate, by the transaction medium system, one or more settlement files associated with the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2); and
transfer, by the transaction medium system, the one or more settlement files to a network core in the first processing network, the network core processing the one or more settlement files to generate one or more central files to send to the second processing network for completion of the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
As per Claim 14, Wilson further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
transmit, by a network core in the first processing network, one or more record files to a batched process in the second processing network, wherein the one or more transactions are completed during the batched process (see Wilson, par. 54-65 and Figures 1 and 2).
Conclusion
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695