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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on October 15, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Regarding Double Patenting rejection applicant argues the limitation “execute a zero-value-spread compression scheme on a plurality of data elements corresponding to one or more electronic transactions by computing first and second remnant data elements, the plurality of data elements stored the memory” does not appear in the patent 12,197,426. Therefore, the double patent rejection should be withdrawn.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. Examiner rejected claims under nonstatutory double patenting rejection which does not require identical limitations. The claim merely omits/add certain limitations. Even though the claims omit/add some limitations, that does not change the scope of the invention and would perform same functionality. Hence, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
(2) Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues that the execution of zero-value-spread compression, the execution of compression loss correction, and the replacement of plurality of data elements provide the data compression that improves the fundamental functioning of the computer system (e.g., improves how data is stored and processed) and provides the practical application of data storage reduction. Accordingly, these features cannot be well- understood, routine, and conventional functions because they improve the functionality of a computer system.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. The arguing limitations are nothing but insignificant extra-solution activity. The arguing limitations execution of zero-value-spread compression, the execution of compression loss correction, and the replacement of plurality of data elements can be done with generic computer component which can consider as data manipulation and the courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Response to Art Rejection:
Applicant argues Sharaby fails to teach zero-value-spread.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. Regarding the phrase “zero-value-spread”, applicant specification paragraph [0021] says “the reduction in data size may be performed using a zero-value-spread compression scheme”. The cited art Sharaby does the same action. Sharaby in column 5 lines 31-36 teaches “the remote computer system 240 may be configured to obtain information about one or more of the data structures 222, process the information to compress a plurality of data elements 232 of the data structures 222, 230 and communicate information about the compressed data structures (e.g., data structure 235 to remote computing systems to reduce memory requirements associated with storing the data structures 222, 230, and 235)” which satisfy the arguing limitation.
(2) Applicant argues Sharaby describes processing first and second remnant data and swap portfolios but notes that the system must process such swaps "without changing cash flows". Accordingly, Sharaby does not describe such swap processing resulting in a difference among flows. Thus, Sharaby is insufficient to describe a processor to "determine that a remnant flow corresponding to the first and second remnant data elements differs from a pre-compression flow for the one or more electronic transactions."
In response examiner respectfully disagree. First of all, it not clear what applicant trying to imply by “Sharaby describes processing first and second remnant data and swap portfolios but notes that the system must process such swaps "without changing cash flows". Accordingly, Sharaby does not describe such swap processing resulting in a difference among flows”. Applicant may want to clarify the claims to imply the argument. However, Sharaby does teach determine that a remnant flow corresponding to the first and second remnant data elements differs from a pre-compression flow for the one or more electronic transactions (column 12 lines 50-57: The financial institution computing system 510 may include a data repository 512, one or more computing devices 514, and, in some cases, at least one user interface 516. In some cases, the data repository 512 may store information about one or more swap portfolios 522 in one or more data structures, where the swap portfolios may include information about two or more different swaps (e.g., swap 1, swap 2, swap n, etc.)).
Examiner’s note: To expedite the prosecution, applicant is encouraged to call examiner if they have any concern regarding this rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11907207 B1 and US 12197426 B2.
Comparing the claims of the current application with the claims of the patents it can be seen claims of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited U.S Patent No. US 11907207 B1 and US 12197426 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited patents. The claim merely omits/add certain limitations. Even though the claims omit/add some limitations, that does not change the scope of the invention and would perform same functionality.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites execute a zero-value-spread compression scheme on a plurality of data elements corresponding to one or more electronic transactions by computing first and second remnant data elements, the plurality of data elements stored the memory; determine that a remnant flow corresponding to the first and second remnant data elements differs from a pre-compression flow for the one or more electronic transactions; execute compression loss correction by computing a remnant spread value; and replace plurality of data elements in the memory with the first and second remnant data elements and/or the remnant spread value to reduce a stored memory size for the one or more electronic transactions.
The limitations determine as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally determine the remnant flow as claimed which is mental process.
The claim recites three additional elements: executing a zero-value-spread compression, execute compression loss correction, and replace plurality of data elements. However, these additional limitations are nothing but well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 executing and replacing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of reducing a data size of a database/data structure stored in a memory of a data transaction processing system. The claim recites the limitations of wherein instructions are further configured to cause the processor to execute the zero-value-spread compression scheme responsive to a memory occupancy for the plurality of data elements exceeding a threshold, wherein the threshold is based on an average data occupancy of at least two electronic transactions of a type of the corresponding electronic transaction, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of reducing a data size of a database/data structure stored in a memory of a data transaction processing system. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the remnant flow amount corresponds to a flow amount determined with a zero-value spread for the first and second remnant data elements, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of reducing a data size of a database/data structure stored in a memory of a data transaction processing system. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the remnant spread value is based on a difference of the flow amount associated with a selected subset of the plurality of data elements and the remnant flow amount, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of reducing a data size of a database/data structure stored in a memory of a data transaction processing system. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to compute a notional value of the second remnant data element as a difference of a weighted notional and the first remnant data element, wherein remnant spread value is based on the difference of the flow amount associated with the selected subset of the plurality of data elements and the remnant flow amount divided by the notional value of the second remnant data element, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of reducing a data size of a database/data structure stored in a memory of a data transaction processing system. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to scale the notional value of the second remnant data element in accord with a period of the one or more electronic transactions when determining the remnant spread value, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of reducing a data size of a database/data structure stored in a memory of a data transaction processing system. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to convert the remnant spread value from a decimal value format to a percentage value format, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of reducing a data size of a database/data structure stored in a memory of a data transaction processing system. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to automatically reduce, responsive to a memory occupancy for the plurality of data elements exceeding a threshold, the stored memory size of for the one or more electronic transactions, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 9-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-8 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharaby et al. (Patent No. : US 10609172 B1) in the view of Yoo et al. (Pub. No. : US 20120068999 A1)
As to claim 1 Sharaby teaches a system comprising:
a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
execute a zero-value-spread compression scheme on a plurality of data elements corresponding to one or more electronic transactions by computing first and second remnant data elements, the plurality of data elements stored the memory (column 5 lines 31-36, column 7 lines 56-60: process the information to compress a plurality of data elements 232 of the data structures 222, 230 and communicate information about the compressed data structures (e.g., data structure 235 to remote computing systems to reduce memory requirements associated with storing the data structures 222, 230, wherein the plurality of data include first and second remnant data);
determine that a remnant flow corresponding to the first and second remnant data elements differs from a pre-compression flow for the one or more electronic transactions (column 12 lines 50-57: The financial institution computing system 510 may include a data repository 512, one or more computing devices 514, and, in some cases, at least one user interface 516. In some cases, the data repository 512 may store information about one or more swap portfolios 522 in one or more data structures, where the swap portfolios may include information about two or more different swaps (e.g., swap 1, swap 2, swap n, etc.));
computing a remnant spread value (column 7 lines 1-10: The parameters may include spread value); and
replace plurality of data elements in the memory with the first and second remnant data elements and/or the remnant spread value to reduce a stored memory size for the one or more electronic transactions (column 6 lines 27-29: Once generated, the compressed data element 235 may be stored in the data repository 220 to replace the uncompressed data structure 230 and the uncompressed data structure 230 may be deleted. In addition, reduction of the number of line items stored in each data structure in the data repository, memory usage may be reduced, along with the associated costs).
Sharaby does not explicitly disclose but Yoo teaches execute compression loss correction (paragraph [0172]: a data loss due to a data compression has minimal effect on correction data generated by the data correcting part 231).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sharaby by adding above limitation as taught by Yoo to improve a response time (Yoo, paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 2 Sharaby together with Yoo teaches a system according to claim 1. Sharaby teaches wherein instructions are further configured to cause the processor to execute the zero-value-spread compression scheme responsive to a memory occupancy for the plurality of data elements exceeding a threshold, wherein the threshold is based on an average data occupancy of at least two electronic transactions of a type of the corresponding electronic transaction (column 1 lines 48-67).
As to claim 3 Sharaby together with Yoo teaches a system according to claim 1. Sharaby teaches wherein the remnant flow amount corresponds to a flow amount determined with a zero-value spread for the first and second remnant data elements (column 7 lines 10-19).
As to claim 4 Sharaby together with Yoo teaches a system according to claim 3. Sharaby teaches wherein the remnant spread value is based on a difference of the flow amount associated with a selected subset of the plurality of data elements and the remnant flow amount (column 7 lines 1-19).
As to claim 5 Sharaby together with Yoo teaches a system according to claim 4. Sharaby teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to compute a notional value of the second remnant data element as a difference of a weighted notional and the first remnant data element, wherein remnant spread value is based on the difference of the flow amount associated with the selected subset of the plurality of data elements and the remnant flow amount divided by the notional value of the second remnant data element (column 6 lines 35-56).
As to claim 6 Sharaby together with Yoo teaches a system according to claim 5. Sharaby teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to scale the notional value of the second remnant data element in accord with a period of the one or more electronic transactions when determining the remnant spread value (column 7 lines 10-19).
As to claim 7 Sharaby together with Yoo teaches a system according to claim 6. Sharaby teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to convert the remnant spread value from a decimal value format to a percentage value format (column 2 lines 1-32).
As to claim 8 Sharaby together with Yoo teaches a system according to claim 1. Sharaby teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to automatically reduce, responsive to a memory occupancy for the plurality of data elements exceeding a threshold, the stored memory size of for the one or more electronic transactions (column 5 lines 47-63).
As to claims 9-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-8 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights