DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 2/25/2025 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 8/4/2026.
a. Claims 1-2, 9, 13-15, 17 are amended
Overall, claims 1-19 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-12 are directed to a system, and claims 13-19 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 13) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 13) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A network for use in providing event-driven services, the network comprising: a first consumption computing device coupled to a first event-driven messaging platform and to a second consumption computing device, the second consumption computing device different than the event-driven messaging platform, the first consumption computing device and the first event-driven messaging platform located in a first region, the second consumption computing device located in a second region, different that the first region; and wherein the first consumption computing device is configured to:
[B] subscribe to a first event topic on the first event-driven messaging platform,
[C] wherein the first event topic is indicative of the second region;
in response to publication of a first event on the first event-driven messaging platform,
[D] consume the first event from the first event-driven messaging platform because the first event is published to the first event topic to which the first consumption device is subscribed and which includes a first event type;
wherein the first event is indicative of a request for a payment account transaction;
based on consumption of the first event,
[E] compile and deliver a first message to the second consumption computing device,
[F] whereby at least a second event including information from the first message is published to a second event topic on a second event-driven messaging platform in the second region to access one or more services subscribed to the second event topic;
[G] receive a second message, from the second consumption computing device, which is responsive to the first message and based on, at least in part, performance of the one or more services in the second region; and
[H] based on the second message, publish a third event on the first event-driven messaging platform under the first event topic, the third event having a second event type indicative of the payment account transaction,
[I] whereby the third event is not directed to a third consumption computing device coupled to the first event-driven messaging platform yet the third consumption computing device consumes the third event based on the third consumption computing device being subscribed to the first event topic, the third event including information based on the performance of the one or more services in the second region.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 13) recites: subscribing to an event on the messaging platform and processing it after publishing ([B], [D]); processing and delivering a message, along with receiving a follow-up message ([E], [G]); and publishing a follow-up event ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing social activities. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “subscribe to a first event topic on the first event-driven messaging platform”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally subscribing to an event topic, without physical aid. Further, the step “consume the first event because the first event is published to the first event topic to which the first consumption device is subscribed and which includes a first event type”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally subscribing to processing the event topic, without physical aid. Further, the step “compile and deliver a first message to the second consumption computing device”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally compiling and delivering a message, without physical aid. Further, the step “receive a second message, from the second consumption computing device, which is responsive to the first message and based on, at least in part, performance of the one or more services in the second region”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally receiving a follow-up message, without physical aid. Further, the step “based on the second message, publish a third event on the first event-driven messaging platform under the first event topic, the third event having the second event type”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally publishing a follow-up event, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 13) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “consumption computing device,” “communication network,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein the first event topic is indicative of the second region;”; “whereby at least a second event including information from the first message is published to a second event topic on a second event-driven messaging platform in the second region to access one or more services subscribed to the second event topic”; “whereby a third consumption computing device coupled to the first event-driven messaging platform consumes the third event based on the third consumption computing device being subscribed to the first event topic, the third event including information based on the performance of the one or more services in the second region. ” as applied to the first event topic, a second event topic, and a third consumer computing device, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 13), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 13) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 13 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 4, which is representative of dependent claims 14, recites: further comprising an edge device coupled in communication with the first event-driven messaging platform and an edge message platform; and
wherein the edge device is configured to:
subscribe to a third event topic on the edge message platform;
in response to publication of a fourth event on the edge message platform,
consume the fourth event because the fourth event is published to the third event topic to which the edge device is subscribed; and
publish the first event to the first event-driven messaging platform.
When considered individually, these claim elements represent a process aimed at: distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing social activities. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 (which is representative of dependent claims 14) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5, which is representative of dependent claims 17, recites: wherein the edge device is further configured to:
consume the third event, from the first event-driven messaging platform, based on the first event type of the third event,
wherein the edge device is the third consumption computing device; and
publish a fourth event to the edge message platform,
whereby a first communication manager computing device consumes the fourth event and communicate data included in the fourth event to a first customer.
When considered individually, these claim elements represent a process aimed at: distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing social activities. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 (which is representative of dependent claims 17) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, which is representative of dependent claims 18, recites: wherein the first communication manager computing device is configured to:
publish the fourth event on the edge message platform, in response to a communication from the customer; and
respond to the communication to the customer based on the fourth event on the edge message platform.
When considered individually, these claim elements represent a process aimed at: distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing social activities. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 (which is representative of dependent claims 18) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claims 19, recites: wherein the third consumption computing device is configured to:
consume the third event, from the first event-driven messaging platform, based on the first event type of the third event; and
publish a fifth event to a second edge message platform,
whereby a second communication manager computing device consumes the fifth event and communicates data included in the fifth event to a second customer.
When considered individually, these claim elements represent a process aimed at: distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing social activities. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claims 19) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites: wherein the first consumption computing device comprises a wide area event emitter (WAEE), which is configured to
couple the event-driven messaging platform and the second consumption computing device in communication, via a wide area network; and
wherein the first consumption device is configured to
deliver the first message to the second consumption computing device, via the wide area network.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 8, 10-11, which are representative of dependent claims 15-16, respectively, recite:
Wherein the request is an authorization request from a customer for the payment account transaction.
wherein the one or more services includes at least one of an authorization messaging service, a fraud scoring service, a regulatory compliance service, a cross-border messaging service, a currency conversion service, and a token vault service.
wherein the first consumption computing device is a cloud-based computing device.
wherein the one or more services include a sequence of services, each performed in series based on subsequent event topics of subsequent events published to the second event-driven messaging platform.
wherein the first region and the second region belong to different regulatory domains.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the first event; the services; the first computing device; the first region – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (distributing (providing) a variety of services to users on a messaging platform), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 8, 10-11, which are representative of dependent claims 15-16 respectively, are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 9, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatiou et al (US 2022/0158961), in view of McElmurry et al (US 2016/0171481).
Regarding Claims 1, 13: Stamatiou first embodiment discloses: A network for use in providing event-driven services, the network comprising: {see at least [0027] social messaging communication network}
a first consumption computing device coupled to a first event-driven messaging platform and to a second consumption computing device, the second consumption computing device different than the event-driven messaging platform, the first consumption computing device and the first event-driven messaging platform located in a first region, the second consumption computing device located in a second region, different that the first region; and {see at least fig1, rc130, rc110, rc120, [0044] social media platform device; [0007] first user device in first location, second user device in second location}
wherein the first consumption computing device is configured to:
subscribe to a first event topic on the first event-driven messaging platform, wherein the first event topic is indicative of the second region; {see at least [0007] send to user device in second location a second topic; [0037] relationship … subscribing}
in response to publication of a first event on the first event-driven messaging platform,
consume the first event from the first event-driven messaging platform because the first event is published to the first event topic to which the first consumption device is subscribed and which includes a first event type, {see at least [0005] social media platform; topics that are specific to an event; [0007] topic of the one or more topics}
based on consumption of the first event, {see at least [0043] disseminating topics describing the event (reads on published event)}
compile and deliver a first message to the second consumption computing device, {see at least [0004] composing messages and sending to mobile device (reads on compiling and delivering message); [0035] composing and sending messages}
whereby at least a second event including information from the first message is published to a second event topic on a second event-driven messaging platform in the second region to access one or more services subscribed to the second event topic; {see at least [0037] subscribing as a type of relationship; [0055] relationship between accounts (reads on further event topic, which would include fourth event topic (reads on subscribing to a specific topic); fig2, rc225, [0075] confidence score}
receive a second message, from the second consumption computing device, which is responsive to the first message and based on, at least in part, performance of the one or more services in the second region; and {see at least fig2, rc205, rc220, rc225, rc230, [0057], [0072]-[0078] performance of service in region, confidence score (reads on performance)}
based on the second message,
publish a third event on the first event-driven messaging platform under the first event topic, the third event having the second event type and indicative of the payment account transaction, whereby the third event is not directed to a third consumption computing device coupled to the first event-driven messaging platform yet the third consumption computing device consumes the third event based on the third consumption computing device being subscribed to the first event topic, the third event including information based on the performance of the one or more services in the second region. {see at least [0075] confidence score, high confidence score (reads on performance information for the respective event); fig3, rc305, [0079] display message (reads on publishing an event)}
Stamatiou does not disclose, however, McElmurry discloses:
wherein the first event is indicative of a request for a payment account transaction; {see at least [0138] response to payment authorization request}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Stamatiou to include the elements of McElmurry. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve transaction security. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Stamatiou evidently discloses distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform. McElmurry is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of requesting authorization for a transaction (e.g., payment) in the same or similar context. Since both distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform, as well as requesting authorization for a transaction (e.g., payment) are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Stamatiou, as well as McElmurry would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Stamatiou / McElmurry.
Regarding Claims 2, 15: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 13. McElmurry further discloses:
wherein the request is an authorization request from a customer for the payment account transaction. {see at least [0138] response to payment authorization request}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Stamatiou, McElmurry to include additional elements of McElmurry. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve transaction security. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Stamatiou, McElmurry evidently discloses distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform. McElmurry is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of requesting authorization for a transaction (e.g., payment) in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 3: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 1. Stamatiou further discloses:
wherein the one or more services includes at least one of an authorization messaging service, a fraud scoring service, a regulatory compliance service, a cross-border messaging service, a currency conversion service, and a token vault service. {see at least [0004]-[0005] messaging service (The reference does not disclose the term “cross-border”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability}
Regarding Claims 4, 14: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 13. Stamatiou further discloses: further comprising an edge device coupled in communication with the first event-driven messaging platform and an edge message platform; and {see at least [0037] platform with edge connections; fig1, rc110, rc112, [0044] user device (reads on edge device)}
wherein the edge device is configured to:
subscribe to a third event topic on the edge message platform; {see at least [0037] subscribing as a type of relationship; [0055] relationship between accounts (reads on further event topic, which would include fourth event topic}
in response to publication of a fourth event on the edge message platform,
consume the fourth event because the fourth event is published to the third event topic to which the edge device is subscribed; and {see at least fig1, rc132, [[0047]-[0048] upcoming events (reads on multitude of events, which would include a third event topic}
publish the first event to the first event-driven messaging platform. {see at least fig4, rc402, [0090]-[0094] presenting a photo (reads on publishing)}
Regarding Claims 5: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 4. Stamatiou further discloses: wherein the edge device is further configured to:
consume the third event, from the first event-driven messaging platform, based on the first event type of the third event, {see at least fig1, rc132, [0047]-[0048] upcoming events (reads on multitude of events, which would include a third event topic}
wherein the edge device is the third consumption computing device; and {see at least fig5, [01030 device of a third-party (reads on third device)}
publish a fourth event to the edge message platform, {see at least fig4, rc402, [0090]-[0094] presenting a photo (reads on publishing)}
whereby a first communication manager computing device consumes the fourth event and communicate data included in the fourth event to a first customer. {see at least fig5, rc502, [0103]-[0107] presenting another photo (reads on publishing)}
Regarding Claims 6: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 5. Stamatiou further discloses: wherein the first communication manager computing device is configured to:
publish the fourth event on the edge message platform, in response to a communication from the customer; and {see at least fig4, rc402, [0090]-[0094] presenting a photo (reads on publishing)}
respond to the communication to the customer based on the fourth event on the edge message platform. {see at least fig5, rc506a, [0105] send by third party user (reads on response to communication by a user/customer)}
Regarding Claims 7: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 4. Stamatiou further discloses: wherein the third consumption computing device is configured to:
consume the third event, from the first event-driven messaging platform, based on the first event type of the third event; and {see at least fig1, rc132, [[0047]-[0048] upcoming events (reads on multitude of events, which would include a third event topic}
publish a fifth event to a second edge message platform,
whereby a second communication manager computing device consumes the fifth event and communicates data included in the fifth event to a second customer. {see at least fig4, rc402, [0090]-[0094] presenting a photo (reads on publishing)}
Regarding Claim 8: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claim 1. McElmurry discloses:
wherein the first consumption computing device is a cloud-based computing device. {see at least [0217] cloud computing}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Stamatiou, McElmurry to include additional elements of McElmurry. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide to the messaging platform the necessary computing infrastructure. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Stamatiou, McElmurry evidently discloses distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform. McElmurry is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of cloud-based computing device in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Stamatiou further discloses: wherein the first consumption computing device comprises a wide area event emitter (WAEE), which is configured to
couple the event-driven messaging platform and the second consumption computing device in communication, via a wide area network; and {see at least [0027] communication networks (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on WAN)}
wherein the first consumption device is configured to
deliver the first message to the second consumption computing device, via the wide area network. {see at least [0027] communication networks (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on WAN)}
Regarding Claims 16: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 15. Stamatiou further discloses:
wherein the one or more services includes at least one of an authorization messaging service, a fraud scoring service, a regulatory compliance service, a cross-border messaging service, a currency conversion service, and a token vault service. {see at least [0004]-[0005] messaging service (The reference does not disclose the term “cross-border”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability}
Regarding Claims 17: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 16. Stamatiou further discloses: wherein the edge device is further configured to:
consume the third event, from the first event-driven messaging platform, based on the first event type of the third event, {see at least fig1, rc132, [0047]-[0048] upcoming events (reads on multitude of events, which would include a third event topic}
wherein the edge device is the third consumption computing device; and
publish a fourth event to the edge message platform, {see at least fig4, rc402, [0090]-[0094] presenting a photo (reads on publishing)}
whereby a first communication manager computing device consumes the fourth event and communicate data included in the fourth event to a first customer. {see at least fig5, rc502, [0103]-[0107] presenting another photo (reads on publishing)}
Regarding Claims 18: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 17. Stamatiou further discloses: wherein the first communication manager computing device is configured to:
publish the fourth event on the edge message platform, in response to a communication from the customer; and {see at least fig4, rc402, [0090]-[0094] presenting a photo (reads on publishing)}
respond to the communication to the customer based on the fourth event on the edge message platform. {see at least fig5, rc506a, [0105] send by third party user (reads on response to communication by a user/customer)}
Regarding Claims 19: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claims 17. Stamatiou further discloses: wherein the third consumption computing device is configured to:
consume the third event, from the first event-driven messaging platform, based on the first event type of the third event; and {see at least fig1, rc132, [[0047]-[0048] upcoming events (reads on multitude of events, which would include a third event topic}
publish a fifth event to a second edge message platform,
whereby a second communication manager computing device consumes the fifth event and communicates data included in the fifth event to a second customer. {see at least fig4, rc402, [0090]-[0094] presenting a photo (reads on publishing)}
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatiou et al (US 2022/0158961), in view of McElmurry et al (US 2016/0171481), in further view of Bright (US 2019/0012714).
Regarding Claim 10: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Stamatiou, McElmurry does not disclose, however, Bright discloses:
wherein the one or more services include a sequence of services, each performed in series based on subsequent event topics of subsequent events published to the second event-driven messaging platform. {see at least fig6-fig12, [0012]-[0018] sequence of services}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Stamatiou, McElmurry to include the elements of Bright. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a predictable environment, based on the ‘first-come, first-served’ rule. In the instant case, Stamatiou, McElmurry evidently discloses distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform. Bright is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of services executed in sequence, serially, in the same or similar context. Since both distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform, as well as services executed in sequence, serially, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Stamatiou, McElmurry, as well as Bright would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Stamatiou, McElmurry / Bright.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatiou et al (US 2022/0158961), in view of McElmurry et al (US 2016/0171481), in further view of Plasse et al (US 2015/0379202).
Regarding Claim 11: Stamatiou, McElmurry discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Stamatiou, McElmurry does not disclose, however, Plasse discloses:
wherein the first region and the second region belong to different regulatory domains. {see at least [0006] regulatory requirements by state}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Stamatiou, McElmurry to include the elements of Plasse. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to expand the messaging platform to areas with different regulatory requirements. In the instant case, Stamatiou, McElmurry evidently discloses distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform. Plasse is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of regions with different regulatory requirements in the same or similar context. Since both distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform, as well as regions with different regulatory requirements are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Stamatiou, McElmurry, as well as Plasse would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Stamatiou, McElmurry / Plasse.
Regarding Claims 12: Stamatiou, McElmurry, Plasse discloses the limitations of Claims 11. Plasse further discloses:
wherein the one or more services includes at least one of an authorization messaging service, a fraud scoring service, a regulatory compliance service, a cross-border messaging service, a currency conversion service, and a token vault service. {see at least [0004]-[0005] messaging service (The reference does not disclose the term “cross-border”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Stamatiou, McElmurry, Plasse to include additional elements of Plasse. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to expand the offering to a multitude of services. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Stamatiou, McElmurry, Plasse evidently discloses distributing event-driven services on a messaging platform. Plasse is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a multitude of services in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190005116 A1 YAMAOKA; HISATOSHI et al. INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD An information processing apparatus, includes: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor: refers to actual result data of first events transmitted from a sensor; removes, from the actual result data, second events in which a sensor value belongs to a region of interest of a pass filter used for filtering; and generates, based on a number of third events in one or more clusters of distribution of the second events, a cut filter including a region of interest corresponding to a shape of the one or more clusters.
US 20090177484 A1 Davis; Marc Eliot et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MESSAGE CLUSTERING The disclosure describes systems and methods delivering communications associated with delivery conditions in which the occurrence of the delivery condition is determined by monitoring information received from a plurality of sources via multiple communication channels. The message delivery systems allow messages to be delivered to any "Who, What, When, Where" from any "Who, What, When, Where" upon the detection of an occurrence of one or more "Who, What, When, Where" delivery conditions. A message (which may be any data object including text-based messages, audio-based message such as voicemail or other audio such as music or video-based prerecorded messages) is delivered in accordance with delivery conditions based on any available data, including topical, spatial, temporal, and/or social data. Furthermore, because the systems coordinate delivery of messages via multiple communication channels and through multiple devices, the communication channel for delivery of a message may be dynamically determined based on the delivery conditions.
US 20210385176 A1 EDAMADAKA; Rajeshwari et al. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RESOLVING PRODUCER AND CONSUMER AFFINITIES IN INTERACTION SERVICING A system and a method for processing a message on a processing platform, such as a Kafka processing platform, are provided. The method includes: acquiring a plurality of partitions from the messaging platform; designating a first partition from among the plurality of partitions as a sticky partition; generating a plurality of routing keys that are configured to route messages to the sticky partition; using a first routing key from among the plurality of routing keys to identify a first service subscription; subscribing to a second service using the first routing key; and receiving a message transmitted by the second service.
US 20040151284 A1 Adamczyk, Maria Systems and methods for originating and sending a voice mail message to an instant messaging platform Systems and methods for originating and sending a voice mail message to an instant messaging platform. One particular system includes a voice mail service adapted to receive a voice mail message and information associated with a recipient subscriber, request an instant messaging address associated with the recipient subscriber's information, and encode the voice mail message for transmission to an instant messaging platform. The system also includes an associated database adapted to provide the voice mail service with an instant messaging address associated with the recipient subscriber's information. Further, the system includes an instant messaging platform adapted to receive the encoded voice mail message from the voice mail service. Also, the system includes a network in communication with the voice mail platform and the instant messaging platform, wherein the voice mail platform transmits the encoded voice mail message to the instant messaging address, and the network routes the encoded voice mail message to the instant messaging platform.
US 20070058792 A1 Chaudhari; Manoj K. et al. Method and system for booting, provisioning and activating hardware and software clients Automated booting of a client for a subscriber is provided for clients that are for use in interactive user sessions that involve multimedia. A subscribe message is sent from the client to a proxy server. The proxy server authenticates the subscribe message, and sends the subscribe message to the configuration server. A notify message is sent to the client from the configuration server. The notify message is sent through the proxy server, and contains a location of a profile for the client. The profile is downloaded to the clients. This arrangement allows the persistence of profiles in a centralized place.
US 6885874 B2 Grube; Gary W. et al. Group location and route sharing system for communication units in a trunked communication system Methods are disclosed for sharing location and route information between communication units (e.g., talkgroup members) that are subscribed to a group location sharing service. The group location sharing service is event-based, such that the communication units may form a subset of a talkgroup desiring to actively participate or monitor an event. Communication units de-subscribe from the group location sharing service or talkgroup when they no longer desire to participate or monitor the event. Service levels may be determined for various subscribers to the group location sharing service. The service levels may include, for example, an information transmission service level and information reception service level that determine an amount, type, and/or timing of information to be sent or received by particular subscribers.
US 20140143004 A1 Abhyanker; Raj EVENT PUBLICATION IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SOCIAL NETWORK A method and system of event broadcast data publication through a neighborhood events server are disclosed. This embodiment includes validating that an event broadcast data is associated with a verified user of the neighborhood events server using a processor and memory. The embodiment includes verifying that a set of geospatial coordinates associated with the event broadcast data are trusted based on a claimed geospatial location of the verified user of the neighborhood events server and determining that a time stamp of the event broadcast data is trusted based on the claimed geospatial location of the verified user of the neighborhood events server. The embodiment includes automatically publishing the event broadcast data on a set of user profiles having verified addresses in a threshold radial distance from the set of geospatial coordinates associated with the event broadcast data of the verified user of the neighborhood events server using a radial algorithm.
US 20200287860 A1 Stamatiou; Paul et al. Event Content Delivery Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for providing event-specific media content. One of the methods includes receiving, by a social messaging platform, an indication of a message by a user of client software on a first user device; receiving, from the first user device, a first location of the first user device; providing, to the first user device, one or more topics that are specific to an event temporally associated with the first location; receiving, the message for posting on the social messaging platform, the message including (i) a topic selected from the one or more topics, and (ii) user selected media content; and adding the message to one or more streams of the social messaging platform.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to the claims interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f).
After further considerations, the interpretation is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “The pending claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A technical solution to a technical problem is not an eligibility criterion. It might be a necessary, but not a sufficient eligibility condition. (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In this way, the pending claims and limitations thereof "provide event-driven architectures, whereby requests are published to messaging platforms under specific topics, and services then subscribe to the topics in order to fulfill the requests."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
An event-driven architecture is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “There is however no Behavior or Relationships, or personal interaction recited in the claims. The claims define an event-driven network, in which events are published and consumed based on particular technical aspects of the claims.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Receiving and delivering messages concerning a certain topic are very much a social activity, as they can be performed mentally or manually by a human.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “More broadly, there is no human activity to be organized.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Here, no human being can, in their mind, register a network subscription with a remote messaging platform, maintain that subscription state, or consume only events published to that topic by other computing devices.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A human can manually or mentally register a subscription and consume only the subscribed messages. The remote messaging platform is a tool that helps in performing the functions. The claims are not directed to the remote messaging platform; the claims only invoke the remote messaging platform.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As presented herein, the pending claims integrate the alleged idea into a practical application. In particular, among other things, the pending claims improve the functioning of a computer.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Distributing services is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims are directed to a specific improvement in the relevant technology, and therefore, integrate the alleged idea into a practical application and/or recite significantly more than the alleged idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Further, in Enfish, the court found patent eligible claims directed to a self-referential table for a computer database because the claims were directed to "a specific improvement to the way computers operate. … In McRO, the court found patent eligible claims directed to …" See, Enfish.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a single Court decision and use the general arguments from that decision to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter of the claimed invention in the Court decision, which in the instant situation it does not. Each application has to be considered on its own merits.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “The social messaging in Stamatiou and payment processing in the pending claims are not the same field of endeavor.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“subscribe to a first event topic on the first event-driven messaging platform”, “wherein the first event is indicative of a request for a payment account transaction”) and in light of the specification, (“distributing event driven services”), the instant application is in the same field of endeavor with Stamatiou (presenting media content). Moreover, the problem addressed by Stamatiou is very much pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors (distributing services online).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “There is NO publication to an event-driven message platform.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Stamatiou discloses:
consume the first event from the first event-driven messaging platform because the first event is published to the first event topic to which the first consumption device is subscribed and which includes a first event type, {see at least [0005] social media platform; topics that are specific to an event; [0007] topic of the one or more topics}
Therefore, Stamatiou discloses the amended claim limitation. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Further, there is no indication that the broadcasts are "published" under any specific topic.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “There is no indication that the performance score in 0075 is displayed to the user device.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See Stamatiou at
receive a second message, from the second consumption computing device, which is responsive to the first message and based on, at least in part, performance of the one or more services in the second region; and {see at least fig2, rc205, rc220, rc225, rc230, [0057], [0072]-[0078] performance of service in region, confidence score (reads on performance)}
based on the second message,
publish a third event on the first event-driven messaging platform under the first event topic, the third event having the second event type and indicative of the payment account transaction, whereby the third event is not directed to a third consumption computing device coupled to the first event-driven messaging platform yet the third consumption computing device consumes the third event based on the third consumption computing device being subscribed to the first event topic, the third event including information based on the performance of the one or more services in the second region. {see at least [0075] confidence score, high confidence score (reads on performance information for the respective event); fig3, rc305, [0079] display message (reads on publishing an event)}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “There is no indication that there is any subscription, as providing a topic to a first device does not subscribe that first device to that topic. … There is no disclosed action or step where any device actually "subscribes" to any topic.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The instant set of claims does not recite any “subscription.’
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As amended herein, it is made clear that the first event is consumed from the event-driven messaging platform, as referenced above.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Stamatiou discloses:
whereby at least a second event including information from the first message is published to a second event topic on a second event-driven messaging platform in the second region to access one or more services subscribed to the second event topic; {see at least [0037] subscribing as a type of relationship; [0055] relationship between accounts (reads on further event topic, which would include fourth event topic (reads on subscribing to a specific topic); fig2, rc225, [0075] confidence score}
Therefore, Stamatiou discloses the claim limitation. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights