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 .
Examiner’s Comment
The restriction of 05/27/2026 is vacated as the restriction was due to a clerical error regarding the entering of the preliminary amendment of 6/12/2025.
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) 24, 25, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210258160 to Kannan.
Regarding claim 24, Kannan teaches a computer-implemented method for managing transactions in a transaction environment, the method comprising:
generating, by a processing system, a digital twin of a marketplace, wherein the digital twin is a digital representation of a structure of the marketplace, the structure having a set of entities of the marketplace including one or more of transactors in the marketplace, transaction authorities in the marketplace, lending authorities in the marketplace, and regulatory authorities in the marketplace (¶ 29, AI marketplace environment for testing and training);
training, by the processing system, an artificial intelligence (AI) model on historical transactions data associated with the marketplace (¶ 29, execution of training);
defining, by the processing system using the trained AI model, a rules framework in the digital twin, wherein the rules framework comprises rules configured by the AI model to govern execution of for executing transactions between each of the one or more of the transactors in the marketplace, the transaction authorities in the marketplace, the lending authorities in the marketplace, and the regulatory authorities in the marketplace (¶ 27-29, 80, 69-71);
monitoring the transactions in near time using the digital twin of the marketplace and the AI model (¶ 72-73); and
applying, by the processing system, the rules framework to govern the monitored transactions, wherein applying the rules framework comprises modifying a parameter of at least one transaction of the monitored transactions (¶ 78, parameter modification).
Regarding claim 25, 43,
Kannan teaches:
implementing, by the processing system, the AI model in an edge computing arrangement
associated with the marketplace, to enable the AI model to monitor the transactions, in near real-time, in the marketplace (¶ 87, 27-29, 80, 69-71, fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 26-33, 35-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of US 20230043702 to Sells.
Regarding claim 26,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
determining, by the processing system, at least one pattern in the transactions for each of
the one or more transactors in the marketplace by implementing the AI model (¶ 226-229, 454, 590, 621); and
generating, by the processing system, a risk profile for each of the one or more transactors in the marketplace based on the determined at least one pattern therefor (¶ 28-32, 73, 227-229).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Sells. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Sells would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating transaction orchestration (Sells, abstract, ¶ 5-9, 554).
Regarding claim 27,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
executing, by the processing system, a given transaction between a given transactor and a
given transaction authority based on the risk profile of the given transactor and the defined rules framework therebetween (¶ 5-9, 28-32, 73, 227-229, 549-556). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 28,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
determining, by the processing system, at least one pattern in the transactions for each of
the one or more transactors in the marketplace by implementing the AI model (¶ 226-229, 454, 590, 621); and
generating, by the processing system, a lending profile for each of the one or more
transactors in the marketplace based on the determined at least one pattern therefor (¶ 560-562, 567, 601). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 29,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
executing, by the processing system, a given transaction between a given transactor and a
given lending authority based on the lending profile of the given transactor and the defined rules framework therebetween (¶ 454, 560-562, 567, 590, 601, 621). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 30,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
determining, by the processing system, at least one pattern in the transactions for each of
the one or more transactors in the marketplace by implementing the AI model (¶ 226-229, 454, 590, 621); and; and
generating, by the processing system, a compliance profile for each of the one or more
transactors in the marketplace based on the determined at least one pattern therefor (¶ 227-229, 493, 532). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 31,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
executing, by the processing system, a given transaction between a given transactor and a
given regulatory authority (¶ 454, 560-562, 567, 590, 601, 621) based on the compliance profile of the given transactor and the defined rules framework therebetween (¶ 227-229, 493, 532; see also ¶ 454, 560-562, 567, 590, 601, 621). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 32,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
sharing, by the processing system, via a distributed leger, a profile of each of the one or
more transactors with at least one of: the one or more transaction authorities in the marketplace, the one or more lending authorities in the marketplace, or the one or more regulatory authorities in the marketplace (¶ 555-556; 564-565). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 33,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
obtaining, by the processing system, a permission from each of the one or more transactors to share the corresponding profile with the at least one of: the one or more transaction authorities in the marketplace, the one or more lending authorities in the marketplace, or the one or more regulatory authorities in the marketplace (¶ 494). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 35,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
tokenizing, by the processing system, a given transaction in the marketplace (¶ 621, 243, 470); and embedding, by the processing system, the tokenized given transaction in a given smart contract; (¶ 238, 245, 437, 470). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 36,
Kannan teaches:
utilizing, by the processing system, a smart contract for automation of a given transaction
based on instructions defined therein between any two of the one or more transactors in the marketplace, the one or more transaction authorities in the marketplace, the one or more lending authorities in the marketplace, or the one or more regulatory authorities in the marketplace by implementing the AI model (fig. 8A, fig. 8B, ¶ 69, 75-77).
Regarding claim 37,
Kannan teaches:
implementing, by the processing system, the AI model to regulate one or more individual
AI models associated with the one or more of the transaction authorities in the marketplace, the lending authorities in the marketplace, and the regulatory authorities in the marketplace (¶ 3-7, 26, regulation of model).
Regarding claim 38,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
receiving, by the processing system, an indication of a given transaction of the monitored transactions from a human user (¶ 18, 198, 488-491);
training, by the processing system, the AI model based on the given transaction (¶ 18, 24, 48, 104-105); and
implementing, by the processing system, the AI model to flag one or more of the monitored transactions based on the training (¶ 621, flagging fraud; ¶ 150, 157, alert flagging; ¶ 259, 614). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 39,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
analyzing, by the processing system, the monitored transactions to determine at least one
of: a size, a structure, or a timing of issuing credit to a given transactor by a given lending
authorities in the marketplace (¶ 355-356, adjusting line of credit; see also ¶ 82-88, 91, 226-229, 247). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 40,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
generating, by the processing system, a verifiable action token for the transactions in the
marketplace (¶ 621, 243, 470, blockchain assets, e.g. token). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 41,
Kannan fails to teach but Sells teaches:
defining, by the processing system, for the lending authorities, a credit line to be provided
each of the transactors in the marketplace based on the transactions data and the monitoring of the transactions in the marketplace, by implementing the AI model (¶ 82-88, 91, 226-229, 355-356, 247). Motivation to include Sells is the same as presented above.
Claim 42 is addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of US 20230036623 to Todasco.
Regarding claim 34,
Kannan fails to teach but Todasco teaches:
masking, by the processing system, one or more defined personal details from the
corresponding profile for each of the one or more transactors before sharing (¶ 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Todasco. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Todasco would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating privacy preferences (Todasco, ¶ 75).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights