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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 or claim 13 or claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea of receiving, a communication, wherein the communication is associated with a request to interact with hosted by an enterprise associated with; transforming, and based on the request, the communication into a structured format using specified in the request thereby generating a request data object, wherein the request data object comprises a unique user identifier and user metadata associated with the request; generating, an enhanced request data object by injecting the request data object with additional metadata, the additional metadata including a unique service identifier; storing, the enhanced request data object in a transaction tracking database including a plurality of enhanced request data objects categorized by application and indexed, for each categorized application, by respective timestamps, unique user identifiers, and unique service identifiers; processing, the request data object using the application, by executing a plurality of processing steps performed associated with the application, wherein responsive to each processing step, the enhanced request data object is updated with a status indicator of each processing step; and outputting, a control signal associated with one or more status indicators of the enhanced request data object. This concept fall under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 13 or claim 18 or claims include by a processor of a computing device, from a third-party computing device, an application; the computing device; by the processor; an application program interface (API) associated with the application; by the processor; by the processor; by the processor; by one or more computing systems; by the processor. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of by a processor of a computing device, from a third-party computing device, an application; the computing device; by the processor; an application program interface (API) associated with the application; by the processor; by the processor; by the processor; by one or more computing systems; by the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0064] of applicant’s specification states a general-purpose computing apparatus. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims 13 and 18 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-12, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 14-17, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 13. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 19-20, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 18. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US Publication No.: 2014/0310160A1).
As per claim 1, Kumar et al. teaches a method comprising (see at least abstract; ¶ 0006-0007): receiving, by a processor of a computing device, a communication from a third-party computing device, wherein the communication is associated with a request to interact with an application hosted by an enterprise associated with the computing device (see at least abstract; ¶ 0005-0009, 0017, 0033, 0046 and 0058); transforming, by the processor and based on the request, the communication into a structured format using an application program interface (API) associated with the application specified in the request thereby generating a request data object, wherein the request data object comprises a unique user identifier and user metadata associated with the request (see at least ¶ 0025-0026, 0033-0037, 0067 and 0071); generating, by the processor, an enhanced request data object by injecting the request data object with additional metadata, the additional metadata including a unique service identifier (see at least ¶ 0025-0026, 0029-0034 and 0050); storing, by the processor, the enhanced request data object in a transaction tracking database including a plurality of enhanced request data objects categorized by application and indexed, for each categorized application, by respective timestamps, unique user identifiers, and unique service identifiers (see at least abstract; ¶ 0005, 0019-0026, 0029-0036, 0059, 0063 and 0071); processing, by the processor, the request data object using the application, by executing a plurality of processing steps performed by one or more computing systems associated with the application, wherein responsive to each processing step, the enhanced request data object is updated with a status indicator of each processing step (see at least abstract; ¶ 0025-0026, 0033-0037, 0061 and 0071); and outputting, by the processor, a control signal associated with one or more status indicators of the enhanced request data object (see at least abstract; ¶ 0005, 0025-0026, 0031-0040, 0061 and 0070-0071).
As per claim 2, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches further comprising: determining, based on evaluation of the one or more status indicators of the enhanced request data object, a failure in a processing step; and causing, responsive to determining the failure, an exception function (see at least abstract; ¶ 0028, 0041, 0060-0061, 0066 and 0070-0071). As per claim 3, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 2 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein causing the exception function comprises: executing the processing step a second time (see at least ¶ 0019, 0028, 0041, 0063 and 0069-0071).
As per claim 4, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 2 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein causing the exception function comprises: routing the request data object to a different computing system within a computing architecture associated with the application (see at least ¶ 0025-0027, 0033-0037, 0067 and 0071);
As per claim 5, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein the additional metadata further comprises timestamp data indicating a start time for processing the request data object, wherein each processing step comprises respective processing timestamps, wherein the method further comprises (see at least abstract; ¶ 0005, 0019-0026, 0029-0036, 0045, 0059, 0063 and 0071): determining, based on evaluating the start time against a respective processing timestamp for a respective processing step, that a timing threshold is satisfied (see at least abstract; ¶ 0005, 0019-0026, 0029-0036, 0045, 0057-0059, 0063 and 0071); updating, responsive to determining that the timing threshold is satisfied, a status indicator of the enhanced request data object for the respective processing step to failed (see at least abstract; ¶ 0028, 0041, 0060-0061, 0066 and 0070-0071); and modifying the control signal to include an indication specifying the respective processing step that failed (see at least abstract; ¶ 0028, 0041, 0060-0061, 0066 and 0070-0071).
As per claim 6, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches further comprising: monitoring, on a periodic basis, the transaction tracking database by parsing each enhanced request data object (see at least abstract; ¶ 0028, 0041, 0060-0064, 0066 and 0070-0071); and generating and outputting a status report comprising a list of all enhanced request data objects having at least one failed status indicator for a time period (see at least abstract; ¶ 0028, 0041, 0060-0061, 0066 and 0070-0071).
As per claim 7, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches further comprising: determining, based on evaluation of the control signal, that processing of the request data object is complete (see at least abstract; ¶ 0031-0032, 0041-0042, 0060-0061, 0066, and 0070-0071); and removing, responsive to completion of processing of the request data object, the enhanced request data object from the transaction tracking database thereby freeing up a memory space in the transaction tracking database (see at least abstract; ¶ 0031-0032, 0041-0042, 0060-0061, 0066, and 0070-0071).
As per claim 8, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein the one or more status indicators comprises one of success, fail, or null (see at least abstract; ¶ 0017, 0037, 0052-0053 and 0061).
As per claim 9, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 8 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein the one or more status indicators are set to null for processing steps that have not been executed (see at least abstract; ¶ 0017, 0037, 0052-0053 and 0061).
As per claim 10, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches where the structured format comprises a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format, an Extensible Markup Language (XLM) format, or a Comma-Separated Values (CSV) format (see at least ¶ 0025-0026, 0033-0037, 0067 and 0071).
As per claim 11, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein the unique user identifier is associated with an account number of a user profile associated with the request (see at least ¶ 0025, 0029, 0034 and 0050).
As per claim 12, Kumar et al. teaches the method of claim 1 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein the unique service identifier is generated using a random alphanumeric generator (see at least ¶ 0025, 0029, 0033-0036, 0055-0058 and 0071).
As per claim 13, otherwise styled as system claim, is equivalent to claim 1. Please see claim 1 rejection described above.
As per claim 14, Kumar et al. teaches the system of claim 13 described above. Kumar et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to (see at least abstract; ¶ 0005-0009, 0017, 0033, 0046 and 0058): determine, based on evaluation of the one or more status indicators of the enhanced request data object, a failure in a processing step (see at least abstract; ¶ 0017, 0037, 0052-0053 and 0061); and causing, responsive to determining the failure, an exception function, wherein causing the exception function comprises executing the processing step a second time or routing the request data object to a different computing system within a computing architecture associated with the application (see at least ¶ 0017-0019, 0028, 0037-0041, 0063 and 0069-0071).
As per claim 15, otherwise styled as system claim, is equivalent to claim 5. Please see claim 5 rejection described above.
As per claim 16, otherwise styled as system claim, is equivalent to claim 6. Please see claim 6 rejection described above.
As per claim 17, otherwise styled as system claim, is equivalent to claim 7. Please see claim 7 rejection described above.
As per claim 18, otherwise styled as the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, is equivalent to claim 1. Please see claim 1 rejection described above.
As per claim 19, otherwise styled as the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, is equivalent to claim 5. Please see claim 5 rejection described above.
As per claim 20, otherwise styled as the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, is equivalent to claim 7. Please see claim 7 rejection described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights