DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, and 16 are currently amended in the present amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections have been overcome by the claim amendments.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, 8, and 14: Ineligible.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 8 recites a product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 14 recites a method, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The abstract idea is that of selecting a payment rails for a transaction.
The limitations that make up the abstract idea are as follows:
(Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
(a) establish and maintain connections with multiple subsets of computers, wherein each subset corresponding to differentiated financial transaction payment rail protocols, wherein the transaction protocols are heterogenous protocols with deterministic measures of financial transactions based on at least a cost parameter, a rate parameters and a capacity parameter;
(b) monitor, in real time using a protocol identifier, said parameters associated with each subset of computers by periodically receiving status updates from each computer in the subsets, wherein the at least one parameter represents transaction processing load or current network traffic, the status updates including processor usage or transaction processing queue length:
(c) receive a transaction request;
(d) select an initial subset of computers to process the transaction request based on a set of predetermined rules and input parameters;
(e) determine, based on said monitored parameters, whether the initial subset of computers is able to accept and process the transaction request without exceeding a defined limit associated with the subset of computers, wherein the defined limit comprises at least one of: a maximum allowable number of pending transactions, a threshold network response time, a maximum transmission bandwidth usage, or a processing queue length limit; and
(f) automatically switch to a different subset of computers in response to the initial subset being unable to accept and process the transaction request and transmit the transaction request to the different subset.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper - but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or interactions between people. More specifically, under commercial or legal interactions, the claims involve business relations, and under managing personal behavior, the claims involve following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of individual subsets of computers, processor, protocol identifier (defined in the specification to be the processor with instructions thereon, and a first subset of computers of a plurality of subsets of computers in claim 1, system, machine readable-instructions, processors, a first subset of computers of a plurality of subsets of computers. In combination with the abstract idea, it amounts to just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (individual subsets of computers, processor, and a first subset of computers of a plurality of subsets of computers in claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claims 2-7 add additional steps to the abstract idea without adding additional components are individually or in combination, applying a generic computer to an abstract idea.
Claims 8-20 are the product and method of claims 1-7.
Examiner’s Proposal for Overcoming 101
Adding the following limitation to claim 1 (or an equivalent thereto)
identifying, by the processor, a percentage of network packets the processor will transmit across one or more of said protocols;
determining, by the processor, the identified percentage of network packets is within the threshold of the protocol;
Response to Arguments
The applicant arguments are directed to the newly claimed limitations each of which are addressed in the rejection outstanding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 Abraham
US Patent 11888729.
As to claims 1,8 and 14
(a) establish and maintain connections with multiple subsets of computers, wherein each subset corresponding to distinct differentiated financial transaction payment rail protocols, wherein the transaction protocols are heterogenous protocols with deterministic measures of financial transactions based on at least a cost parameter, a rate parameters and a capacity parameter; Abstract (A routing decision may be made automatically based on real-time network measurements and/or static rules. Real-time network measurements may be obtained by monitoring transport computers for failures, delays, or other undesirable activity. The routing decisions may further be based on expected volumes (e.g., based on analysis of historical spikes in volume). The routing decisions may further be based on user-configured rules and preferences, received via a routing administration interface) , Fig 4 p.96 p.97
(b) monitor, in real time using a protocol identifier, said parameters associated with each subset of computers by periodically receiving status updates from each computer in the subsets, wherein the at least one parameter represents transaction processing load or current network traffic, the status updates including processor usage or transaction processing queue length: Fig 4 p.96 p.97
{(c) receive a transaction request;
(d) select an initial subset of computers to process the transaction request based on a set of predetermined rules and input parameters;
(e) determine, based on said monitored parameters, whether the initial subset of computers is able to accept and process the transaction request without exceeding a defined limit associated with the subset of computers, wherein the defined limit comprises at least one of:
a maximum allowable number of pending transactions, a threshold network response time, a maximum transmission bandwidth usage, or a processing queue length limit; and
(f) automatically switch to a different subset of computers in response to the initial subset being unable to accept and process the transaction request and transmit the transaction request to the different subset.}
Fig 4 p. 95 (predetermined threshold) p.96 p.97 (gateway server selecting the transport computer)
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to log, in an audit database, an indication of each switching event, including a cause of the switch and an identity of the subset of computers to which the transaction request was redirected. p 164
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein determining whether the initial subset of computers is able to accept and process the transaction includes sending, in real time, a query to at least one computer of the subset and receiving a response indicating current processing status. p 95-97
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein monitoring the at least one parameter includes periodically receiving status updates from each computer in the subsets, the status updates including processor usage or transaction processing queue length. P 96
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the defined limit is configurable based on characteristics of the different transaction protocol corresponding to that subset.. P 97 expected volume
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus, after automatically switching to a different subset of computers, transmits a notification to an administrative system indicating the switch and an associated reason. P43
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus further includes a rule engine configured to update said predetermined rules for subset selection based on historical transaction success rates or user feedback over time. P43
9. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein monitoring the at least one parameter includes periodically receiving status updates from each computer in the subsets, the status updates including processor usage or transaction processing queue length. (see corresponding apparatus claim 2)
10. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the defined limit is configurable based on characteristics of the different transaction protocol corresponding to that subset. p 150 the characteristics being dates and times.
11. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein after automatically switching to a different subset of computers, the instructions further cause the processor to transmit a notification to an administrative system indicating the switch and an associated reason. (see corresponding apparatus claim 4)
12. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, further comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to update the predetermined rules for subset selection based on historical transaction success rates or user feedback. P 53
13. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the processor stores an audit log of each protocol switch, including values of the monitored parameter that precipitated each switch. P 102 where the decision algorithm reads on the audit log.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein monitoring the at least one parameter includes periodically receiving status updates from each computer in the subsets, the status updates including processor usage or transaction processing queue length. p 90
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the defined limit includes at least one of: a maximum allowable number of pending transactions, a threshold network response time, or a maximum transmission bandwidth usage associated with the subset of computers. p 53 (expected volumes)
17. The method of claim 14, further comprising, after automatically switching to a different subset of computers, transmitting a notification to an administrative system indicating the switch and an associated reason. p 59 (As an example, the routing administration interface 108 may transmit instructions to the resource provider computer 102, thereby causing the resource provider computer to generate, and cause display of, interface elements such as links, modals, images, text, etc. A user may interact with such interface elements)
18. The method of claim 14, further comprising updating the predetermined rules for subset selection based on historical transaction success rates or user feedback. p 86
19. The method of claim 14, further comprising logging each protocol switch, including values of the monitored parameter that precipitated each switch, to an audit record. p 86 (where the gateway server reads on an audit record)
20. The method of claim 14, further comprising, prior to switching to the different subset of computers, sending a real-time query to at least one computer of the initial subset and receiving a response indicating current processing status, wherein a decision to switch is based at least in part on the received response p 54
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 RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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 Anderson can be reached at 571-272-0580. 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.
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights