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
Applicant filed an amendment on 8/27/26. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-16, and 19-26 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, and 19 are amended. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are canceled. New claims 21-26 are added herein. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive in view of updated grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8 and 14 contain “The first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers”; This element is from original claim 4 and thus it is self supporting. However, on review of the specification there is no literal support for this limitation. On the face it appears that this is a form of sorting. Claim 5 now rolled up indicates “substantially matches”. Again while noted in the non-final, the support for substantially matches is 0050,
“The one or more payment amounts may be arranged in an order that substantially matches the order of the transaction IDs in the settlement file that corresponds to the given period of time. For example, the settlement file 210 may specify that 100 transactions occurred on Saturday September 14. The payment amount for each transaction may also be included in the settlement file. The payout that commerce platform 110 sends to the merchant may be separated into payment amounts that substantially match the order of the transaction IDs in the settlement file.
Here again, substantially is broadly interpreted in the claims because the applicant definition of substantially uses “substantially” and does not define the actual substantially limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here Claims 1, 8 and 14 are independent claims. They are method, non-transitory medium and system type claims which are statutory. (Step 1 Yes)
Claim 1 recites the following abstract limitations;
receiving, by a … and from a …, a plurality of electronic requests for authorization, each electronic request in the plurality of electronic requests being associated with an operation performed by the …;generating, for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests, a first identifier to enable the … to uniquely identify an operation associated with each electronic request in a subset of electronic requests the respective electronic request and a second identifier assigned on behalf of the …;transmitting, for each respective electronic request in the subset of electronic requests, an authorization message to the … authorizing the … to perform an operation associated with the respective electronic request, the authorization message comprising the first identifier and the second identifier generated for the respective electronic request; generating, by the …, a file comprising the first identifiers generated for the subset of electronic requests, the first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers ;arranging, by the …, data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file;and transmitting, by the … and to the …, a message comprising the file and data associated with the subset of electronic requests.
Here the limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity, which therefore recites a fundamental economic practice related to business transactions. If a claim under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice then it falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The generic non-abstract elements include a first and second computer system. The recitation of generic computing components does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 8, 14 are similar to claim 1. Step 2 A Prong 1 Yes the claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements, none noted.
The computer hardware/software is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly these additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea an are at a high level of generality. Claims 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
There is no specific inventive concept. Applicant applies two computers that are generic and does not improve the computer or technology, but merely the transaction, in an “apply it type role” .
Step 2B No the claims do not provide specifically more.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-20 do not add further additional elements. Thus claims 1-20 are not patent eligible in current form.
New dependent claims 21-26 are rejected by virtue of dependency but, claims 24-26 add a digital signature which may be helpful in the overall context of “practical application”
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.
Claims 1-3,6-9,12-16,19-26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of US Patent Publication 20200410559 to Qaudeer in view of US Patent Publication to Mavromatis 20140164219
As per claim 1, Quadeer discloses; receiving, by a first computing system and from a second computing system, a plurality of electronic requests for authorization,
Quadeer(0027) each electronic request in the plurality of electronic requests being associated with an operation performed by the second computing system;
Quadeer(0043, one or more devices) generating, for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests, Quadeer(0053, requests)
a first identifier to enable the first computing system to uniquely identify an operation associated with the respective electronic request and a second identifier assigned on behalf of the second computing system;
Quadeer(0038)
transmitting, for each respective electronic request in the subset of electronic requests, an authorization message to the second computing system authorizing the second computing system to perform an operation associated with the respective electronic request,
Quadeer(0065-66)
the authorization message comprising the first identifier and the second identifier generated for the respective electronic request;
Quadeer (0065-66)
generating, by the first computing system, a file comprising the first identifiers generated for the subset of electronic requests;
Quadeer(0062)
The first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers; Quadeer(0062)
Arranging by the first computing system data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that … the order of the first identifiers in the file Qaudeer(0041, sort/group records, 0065, 68 sort claims for example)
and transmitting, by the first computing system and to the second computing system, a message comprising the file and data associated with the subset of electronic requests.
Quadeer(0038 messages)
Here in view of applicant arguments and amendments, Quadeer does not fully disclose the “substantially” aspect which in view of the specification is not clear. However, 0040 of Mavromatis discloses substantially and matching by identifier in the context of reconciliation of transctions. It would therefore have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the reconciliation of Quadeer with matching of Mavromatis for the motivation of “transaction processing based on … a linking instrument” (0002)
Claims 8, 14 are similar to claim 1.
As per claims 2, 15 Quadeer discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the plurality of electronic requests from the second computing system comprises receiving at least two or more electronic requests over a period of time.
Quadeer(0065-66, requests and criteria, two requests could be two or more)
As per claim 3, 9 and 16 Quadeer discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprises
identifying the subset of electronic requests from the plurality of electronic requests for authorization, wherein identifying the subset of electronic requests comprises: identifying an account associated with an electronic request; determining whether the account satisfies one or more criteria associated with the electronic request; and in response to determining that the account satisfies the one or more criteria associated with the electronic request: determining that the second computing system can be authorized to execute the operation associated with the electronic request.
Quadeer(0065-66, requests and criteria, “one or more” could be one and “criteria” could be just about anything”)
As per claims 6, 12 and 19 Quadeer discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprises: generating a digital signature associated with the file; and including the digital signature into the file prior to transmitting the message to the second computing system.
Qaudeer(0026)
As per claims 7, 13 and 20 Quadeer discloses; The method of claim 6, wherein the file further comprises data indicating a time, a source, and a method associated with an operation, the operation associated with a respective electronic request in the subset of electronic requests.
(0028, electronic request)
As per claims 21, -23 Quadeer discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein the first identifier uniquely identifies the operation within records maintained by the first computing system, and the second identifier uniquely identifies the operation within records maintained on behalf of the second computing system.
Quadeer(0073)
As per claims 24-26 Quadeer discloses; The method of claim 6, wherein generating the digital signature comprises generating a respective digital signature for each operation associated with the subset of electronic requests, and wherein including the digital signature into the file comprises including the respective digital signatures into the file.
Quadeer(0026, signature, unique)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 8/27/26. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-16, and 19-26 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, and 19 are amended. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are canceled.
New claims 21-26 are added herein.
After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive in view of updated grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 USC § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims recite patent-eligible subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Office Action characterizes the claims as being directed to "a fundamental economic practice related to business transactions" and therefore as reciting a certain method of organizing human activity. Office Action, page 2.
That characterization does not account for the claims as a whole, including the expressly recited operations performed by the first computing system and the arrangement of the first identifiers and associated data recited in the independent claims.
A. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the Claims Are Integrated into a Practical Application The Specification identifies a specific technological problem in the field of computerized transaction reconciliation. In particular, the Specification explains that prior reconciliation
systems were "slow and cumbersome" and often failed to provide sufficient information for accurate accounting and reconciliation. The Specification further explains that the disclosed ordered settlement file architecture improves reconciliation accuracy, streamlines processing, and reduces latency by providing an ordered transaction data structure based upon corresponding identifiers maintained by different computing systems. See Spec. [0004], [0019], [0021], [0033], and [0049]. Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a specific technological improvement in computerized reconciliation systems rather than to the mere automation of a business practice.
Assuming solely for purposes of argument that the Office Action correctly identifies a judicial exception, the pending claims integrate any such alleged exception into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(a), § 2106.05(b), and § 2106.05(e).
Claim 1 recites "receiving, by a first computing system and from a second computing
system, a plurality of electronic requests for authorization, each electronic request in the plurality of electronic requests being associated with an operation performed by the second computing system."
Claim 1 therefore does not merely recite receiving transaction information generally. It expressly recites receipt by the first computing system, from the second computing system, of electronic requests having the recited association with operations performed by the second computing system. The Specification describes the corresponding exchange and processing of authorization requests at paragraphs [0020], [0031], [0032], and [0039].
Claim 1 further recites "generating, for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests, a first identifier to enable the first computing system to uniquely identify an operation associated with the respective electronic request and a second identifier assigned on behalf of the second computing system." The recited generation is performed "for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests," and the claim separately recites the function of the first identifier and the assignment of the second identifier. The Specification describes the generation, association, and use of transaction identifiers and order numbers at paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0029], [0031], [0041], and [0047].
Paragraph [0021] of the Specification explains that the recited ordering enables the
merchant and commerce platform systems to "agree on an ordered set of transaction data when comparing settlement records" and provides a "shared index of transaction records." The Specification further explains that the recited ordering permits "more easily locating missing10
records, mismatched record counts, etc." Spec. [0021]. Accordingly, the first and second identifiers are not merely information presented for human consumption. The identifiers are generated and used in the operations expressly recited in claim 1.
Here the specification is utilized to explain the practical application. However, the claims define the bounds of the invention and thus applicant may be arguing what is not claimed.
Claim 1 further recites "generating, by the first computing system, a file comprising the first identifiers generated for the subset of electronic requests, the first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers." Claim 1 also recites "arranging, by the first computing system, data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file." Thus, the claim does not recite merely collecting or displaying transaction information. It recites how the first identifiers are arranged in the file and how the data associated with the subset of electronic requests is arranged relative to the order of those first identifiers.
The Specification expressly explains that the ordered settlement file "improves the speed and accuracy of reconciliations," "streamline[s] calculations," and "reduce[s] the latency of the reconciliation process." Spec. [0019]. The Specification further explains that ordering transaction identifiers according to corresponding order numbers enables systems to "agree on an ordered set of transaction data," simplifies processing, reduces latency, and permits more efficient identification of missing records and mismatched records. Spec. [0021]. The Specification again explains that the ordered settlement file enables a "more efficient and more reliable reconciliation process." Spec. [0033]. These are technological improvements achieved through the claimed arrangement of computer-generated data structures rather than through business decision-making.
Claim 1 further recites "transmitting, by the first computing system and to the second computing system, a message comprising the file and data associated with the subset of electronic requests." This recited transmission provides the second computing system with "the file and data associated with the subset of electronic requests" after the first computing system has performed the recited generating and arranging operations. The Specification explains that transmission of the settlement file enables improved reconciliation between merchant systems and commerce platform systems while increasing reliability and reducing processing burden. Spec. [0019], [0021], [0033], and [0050].
The practical technological improvements achieved by the claims are repeatedly described throughout the Specification. The Specification states that the recited ordering
"improves the speed and accuracy of reconciliations," "streamline[s] calculations," and "reduce[s] the latency of the reconciliation process." Spec. [0019]. The Specification further states that the ordering enables the systems to "agree on an ordered set of transaction data when comparing settlement records" and assists in locating "missing records" and "mismatched record counts." Spec. [0021]. These disclosures support an improvement to computerized transaction reconciliation under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Additionally, claim 1 does not merely append computer implementation to the alleged abstract idea. Claim 1 recites "generating, for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests," the first and second identifiers; "generating, by the first computing system, a file comprising the first identifiers generated for the subset of electronic requests, the first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers"; "arranging, by the first computing system, data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file"; and transmitting to the second computing system "a message comprising the file and data associated with the subset of electronic requests." These recited operations must be considered individually and in combination when determining whether the alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. This supports eligibility under MPEP § 2106.05(b) and MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Here while the specification is cited to show an improved database. The claims do not necessarily highlight the improvement to the technology. Applicant should consider incorporating some of the specified elements as argued into the claims.
USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40 also illustrates that eligibility should be evaluated based on the particular computer operations recited in the claim rather than a generalized description of the result.
Here the elements include two computing systems generically. The network monitoring example is more directed to network anomaly detection rather than the claimed file reconciliation. Whereas network monitoring has no manual analogies, the reconciliation is an offshoot of paper processes.
Here, claim 1 recites "generating, for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests, a first identifier ... and a second identifier assigned on behalf of the second computing system," "generating, by the first computing system, a file comprising the first identifiers ... the first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers," and "arranging, by the first computing system, data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file." These recited operations improve the operation of reconciliation systems themselves, rather than merely using computers as tools to perform an economic activity. Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Here the practical application is not highlighted by these generic steps.
The recent precedential Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB
September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel (ARP) Decision) (incorporated into the MPEP § 2106.04(d), subsection III), further confirms that computer-implemented inventions are not directed to an abstract idea when the claimed features improve the operation of a computer or another technological process rather than merely invoke generic computing components as tools. In particular, the MPEP has been revised to add that "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 in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technicalfield" (emphasis added). Similar to the analysis discussed in Desjardins, claim 1 recites "generating, for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests," the first and second identifiers, "generating, by the first computing system," the recited file, and "arranging, by the first computing system," the associated data in the recited order. These features improve computerized reconciliation processing by improving accuracy, streamlining calculations, and reducing reconciliation latency. See Spec. [0019], [0021], [0033], and [0049].
The Office Action's rejection is also procedurally deficient. At Step 2A Prong Two, the Office Action stated that "the claims recite the additional elements, none noted." Office Action, page 3. MPEP § 2106.07(a) requires that a rejection "identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception" and "evaluate the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application by explaining" either that "there are no additional elements in the claim" or that "the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." The Office Action failed to identify and weigh the claimed additional elements-including generating a file comprising the first identifiers, transmitting authorization messages comprising both identifiers, and transmitting a message comprising the file and associated data-or analyze the claims as a whole. This failure to engage with the actual claim limitations renders the rejection deficient.
B. Under Step 2B, the Claims Recite an Inventive Concept
Here under Desjardins, which was generally directed to machine learning, the applicant that improves the technology or demonstrates an improvement ot machine learning would be persuasive.
Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application, the claims nevertheless recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
The Office Action asserts that the claims use generic computer systems, but does not address whether the recited combination, considered as a whole, was well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 1 recites "generating, for each respective electronic request in a subset of electronic requests," the first and second identifiers; arranging "the first identifiers . . . in the file according to the second identifiers"; and "arranging . . .data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file." Paragraph [0021] of the Specification explains that the recited ordering permits the systems to "agree on an ordered set of transaction data," reduces the transactions considered for a specified period, and assists in locating "missing records" and "mismatched record counts." The Office Action does not provide factual support establishing that the recited combination, considered as a whole, was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Specification explains that ordering transaction identifiers according to
corresponding order numbers permits the systems to "agree on an ordered set of transaction data," reduces the transactions that must be considered for a specified period, and assists in locating "missing records" and "mismatched record counts." Spec. [0021]. The Office Action does not identify evidence establishing that the combination recited in claim 1, considered as a whole, was well-understood, routine, and conventional. Under Berkheimer, factual support is required before such a conclusion can be sustained.
Here the examiner according to current standards analyzed the claims to be a fundamental economic practice directed to database management. There is requirement to show that a first and second computer are well understood and conventional.
The analysis in Enfish and McRO further supports consideration of the claimed features as a whole rather than at a generalized level. Claim 1 does not merely recite reconciling transactions and instruct that the reconciliation be performed using a computer. Claim 1 recites, among other features, "generating" the first and second identifiers for each respective electronic request in the subset, arranging "the first identifiers . . . in the file according to the second identifiers," and "arranging . . .data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file." The eligibility analysis should address those recited operations rather than replace them with a generalized characterization of transaction reconciliation.
The Office Action does not address whether the recited combination, considered as a
whole, was well-understood, routine, and conventional. In particular, the Office Action does not address the combination of "generating" the recited first and second identifiers, arranging "the first identifiers . .. in the file according to the second identifiers," and "arranging . . .data14
associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file." The Office Action therefore does not provide factual support for concluding that the claimed combination amounts only to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception under Step 2B.
Furthermore, the Office Action dismissed dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 with the statement that they "do not add further additional elements." Office Action, page 3. This fails to provide the individualized analysis required by MPEP § 2106.07(a). For example, claims 6, 12, and 19 recite generating a digital signature associated with the file and including the digital signature into the file prior to transmitting the message-security features that are not addressed in the rejection. Claims 3, 9, and 16 recite identifying an account associated with an electronic request and determining whether the account satisfies one or more criteria-account verification steps that are similarly unaddressed. New claims 21-26 add further limitations, including that the first identifier uniquely identifies the operation within records maintained by the first computing system and the second identifier uniquely identifies the operation within records maintained on behalf of the second computing system (claims 21-23), and that generating the digital signature comprises generating a respective digital signature for each operation (claims 24-26). These limitations were not considered.
Enfish and Mcroe are directed to improvements of the software for example rather than reconciliation of data. In regards to claims 6, 12 and 19, digital signatures would help if they were an improvement to the technology. Likewise claims 24-26 include digital signature claims. However, including a digital signature in a file does not sound like an improvement in the technology as digital signatures are sued to track various security elements and as claimed do not appear to offer a specific improvement to the technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0410559 ("Qaudeer"). These rejections are respectfully traversed, and reconsideration and withdrawal of these rejections are respectfully requested.
A. Independent claim 1
Independent claim 1 has been amended to incorporate features of former dependent claims 4 and 5 and now recites, in part, "generating, by the first computing system, a file comprising the first identifiers generated for the subset of electronic requests, the first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers" and "arranging, by the first computing system, data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file." The cited portions of the applied reference do not expressly or inherently disclose at least these features of independent claim 1.
With respect to former claim 4, the Office Action has alleged that Qaudeer discloses the first identifiers arranged according to the second identifiers. Office Action, page 5. In particular, the Office Action asserts that paragraph [0062] of Qaudeer discloses "various ways to arrange and sort the data." The cited passages do not disclose the quoted features.
Here “substantially matching” is a term that might include varying degrees of matching broadly speaking. Substantially could define an approximate match or partial match.
Paragraph [0062] of Qaudeer describes a state database that "may be used to store the most recent record from partner information assets 642 along with its associated blockchain identifier" to "reduce search latencies." Qaudeer, paragraph [0062]. Qaudeer's state database stores the most recent record with a blockchain identifier to reduce search latency-it does not disclose arranging first identifiers in a file according to second identifiers.
With respect to former claim 5, the Office Action has alleged that Qaudeer discloses arranging data in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers. Office Action, page 5. The Office Action cites paragraphs [0041] and [0065] of Qaudeer. The cited passages do not disclose the quoted features.
Paragraph [0041] of Qaudeer describes a data integrator that may "sort/group received records by partner" so that "records for each partner may be accessible through restricted channels." Qaudeer, paragraph [0041]. This describes sorting records by partner for access16
control purposes-not arranging data in an order that substantially matches the order of first identifiers in a file. Paragraph [0065] describes a user initiating "a wholesale claim request" that includes "an invoice number, an invoice amount, a claim amount, a claim type." Qaudeer, paragraph [0065]. This describes the contents of a claim request-not arranging data according to identifiers in a file.
Neither the cited statement that records may be "sort[ed]/group[ed] . . . by partner" nor the cited disclosure of "an invoice number, an invoice amount, a claim amount, a claim type" discloses "the first identifiers being arranged in the file according to the second identifiers" or "arranging . . . data associated with the subset of electronic requests in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers in the file," as recited in claim 1. Qaudeer [0041], [0065]. The cited passages concern grouping records by partner and identifying information included in a claim request. They do not disclose the claimed arrangement of the first identifiers according to the second identifiers or the claimed arrangement of the associated data in an order that substantially matches the order of the first identifiers.
For at least these reasons, the cited portions of the applied reference do not expressly or inherently disclose all of the features of independent claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is patentable. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claim 1 are respectfully requested.
Here applicant claims terms such as “substantially matches” which per the above objection are not specifically defined. However in view of the argument, the examiner offers Mavromatis to counter the amendment under 35 UCS 103 rather than 35 USC 102.
Claims 8, 14 are argued similar to claim 1.
D. Dependent claims 3, 9, and 16
Dependent claims 3, 9, and 16 recite, in part, "identifying the subset of electronic
requests from the plurality of electronic requests for authorization, wherein identifying the subset of electronic requests comprises: identifying an account associated with an electronic request; determining whether the account satisfies one or more criteria associated with the electronic request; and in response to determining that the account satisfies the one or more criteria associated with the electronic request: determining that the second computing system can be authorized to execute the operation associated with the electronic request." The cited portions of the applied reference do not expressly or inherently disclose at least these features of dependent claims 3, 9, and 16.
The Office Action has alleged that Qaudeer discloses these limitations, citing paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and asserting that "'one or more' could be one and 'criteria' could be just about anything." Office Action, page 5. The cited passages do not disclose the quoted features.
Paragraphs [0065]-[0066] of Qaudeer describe a user initiating "a wholesale claim
request" that includes "an invoice number, an invoice amount, a claim amount, a claim type," and a service node applying "the appropriate smart contract" to "validate and adjudicate (e.g., approve or deny) claim request 704." Qaudeer, paragraphs [0065]-[0066]. This describes validating a claim request against a smart contract-not identifying an account associated with18
an electronic request, determining whether the account satisfies one or more criteria associated with the electronic request, and determining on that basis that the second computing system can be authorized to execute the operation. The Office Action's speculation that "'one or more' could be one and 'criteria' could be just about anything" is not a finding of express or inherent disclosure.
Thus, the cited portions of Qaudeer cannot be seen as expressly or inherently disclosing all of the features of claims 3, 9, and 16, particularly with respect to at least the features of "identifying an account associated with an electronic request," "determining whether the account satisfies one or more criteria associated with the electronic request," and "determining that the second computing system can be authorized to execute the operation associated with the electronic request."
For at least these reasons, the cited portions of the applied reference do not expressly or inherently disclose all of the features of dependent claims 3, 9, and 16. Accordingly, claims 3, 9, and 16 are patentable. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 3, 9, and 16 are respectfully requested.
In regards to “one or more criteria”, one or more only requires one, which under broadest reasonable interpretation standards is permissible. In regards to criteria, “one or more criteria” likewise cold be one and further more criteria could be almost any criteria. If applicant were to specific the criteria, then it would require a more specific rejection.
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 19 recite, in part, "generating a digital signature associated with the file; and including the digital signature into the file prior to transmitting the message to the second computing system." The cited portions of the applied reference do not expressly or inherently disclose at least these features of dependent claims 6, 12, and 19.
The Office Action has alleged that Qaudeer discloses these limitations, citing paragraph [0026]. Office Action, page 6. The cited passages do not disclose the quoted features.
Paragraph [0026] of Qaudeer describes that "[e]ach piece of data in the distributed ledger may be considered as a hash value (i.e., unique signature of the original data) in a hash tree structure for efficiency. This hash tree ensures that blocks received from the trusted node are received undamaged and unaltered." Qaudeer, paragraph [0026]. This describes hash values in a hash tree of the distributed ledger for tamper detection-not generating a digital signature associated with a file and including the digital signature into the file prior to transmitting a message to the second computing system. Qaudeer's hash tree is a blockchain integrity mechanism, not a digital signature generated for and included in a settlement file.
Thus, the cited portions of Qaudeer cannot be seen as expressly or inherently disclosing all of the features of claims 6, 12, and 19, particularly with respect to at least the features of "generating a digital signature associated with the file" and "including the digital signature into the file prior to transmitting the message to the second computing system."
For at least these reasons, the cited portions of the applied reference do not expressly or inherently disclose all of the features of dependent claims 6, 12, and 19. Accordingly, claims 6, 12, and 19 are patentable. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 6, 12, and 19 are respectfully requested.
Here on review of Quadeer 0026, it appears that digital signature is disclosed.
Dependent claims 7, 13, and 20 recite, in part, "the file further comprises data indicating a time, a source, and a method associated with an operation, the operation associated with a respective electronic request in the subset of electronic requests."
The cited portions of the applied reference do not expressly or inherently disclose at least these features of dependent claims 7, 13, and 20.
The Office Action has alleged that Qaudeer discloses these limitations, citing paragraph [0028]. Office
Action, page 6. The cited passages do not disclose the quoted features.
Paragraph [0028] of Qaudeer describes that "client device 180 may include or access a decentralized application (dApp) that may be used to generate, submit, and/or review a claim and/or other related assets on the blockchain" and that "[t]he client device 180 (using the dApp 510) may use, for example, an API call for the particular type of claim." Qaudeer, paragraph [0028]. This describes a client device submitting a claim via a decentralized application and API call-it says nothing about a file comprising data indicating a time, a source, and a method associated with an operation.
Here claim 7 requires claim 6, and in 0026, as cited, a digital signature is provided. Furthermore timestamp would indicate time. It appears that other tracking elements are provided. In regards to “a method associated with an operation”, it does not appear that a specific method is supported by the specification so the examiner took this limitation to be general tracking related data.
Dependent claims- by virtue of dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NetBill: an Internet commerce system optimized for network-delivered services (Year: 1995)
Credits and debits on the Internet (Year: 1997)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
