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 .
rendering, on a graphical user interface of a client device, an initial set of protocol-specific communication options generated by a protocol-selection engine for processing a transaction request, each option being associated with an attribute selected by a user;
(b) receiving, via an input device, a user selection of a proposed communication protocol;
(c) presenting, in response to user feedback, an alternative protocol option identified by evaluating protocol-capability metadata, rules, and network-state information;
(d) repeating operations
(b) and (c) until a confirmation signal specifying a user-confirmed protocol is received; and (e) transmitting, by a network interface, a structured electronic message corresponding to the transaction request using the user-confirmed protocol, including encoding the message according to protocol-specific formatting requirements.
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 1,9 and 19 recite an apparatus, method and product which are statutory categories 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:
(a) rendering, on a graphical user interface of a client device, an initial set of protocol-specific communication options generated by a protocol-selection engine for processing a transaction request, each option being associated with an attribute selected by a user;
(b) receiving, via an input device, a user selection of a proposed communication protocol;
(c) presenting, in response to user feedback, an alternative protocol option identified by evaluating protocol-capability metadata, rules, and network-state information;
(d) repeating operations
(b) and (c) until a confirmation signal specifying a user-confirmed protocol is received; and (e) transmitting, by a network interface, a structured electronic message corresponding to the transaction request using the user-confirmed protocol, including encoding the message according to protocol-specific formatting requirements.
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 computers, processors, networks 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 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 2-8 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 9-16 and 17-20 are the apparatus and product equivalent to the method of claims 1-8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham US Patent 11888729.
As to claims 1,9 and 17
rendering, on a graphical user interface of a client device, an initial set of protocol-specific communication options generated by a protocol-selection engine for processing a transaction request, each option being associated with an attribute selected by a user; p 45 p 60 As shown, system 100B includes resource provider computer 102, gateway server 104, a plurality of transport computers (e.g., transport computer A 106A, transport computer B 106B, transport computer C 106C, and transport computer D 106D), processing network 110, authorizing computer 112, routing administration interface 108, and user device 114.The resource provider computer 102 may include a display, such as a screen, for displaying interface elements.
(b) receiving, via an input device, a user selection of a proposed communication protocol; p 98
(c) presenting, in response to user feedback, an alternative protocol option identified by evaluating protocol-capability metadata, rules, and network-state information; p 60 p 73 routing manger evaluating historical data , process authorization requests
until a confirmation signal specifying a user-confirmed protocol is received; and (e) transmitting, by a network interface, a structured electronic message corresponding to the transaction request using the user-confirmed protocol, including encoding the message according to protocol-specific formatting requirements. P 01, 40 routing manager selection
The reference does not expressly teach (d) repeating operations until d). It would be obvious for one skilled in the art to repeat the operation as the invention is directed to finding the most suitable routing path and [I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Fig 4 p. 95 (predetermined threshold) p.96 p.97 (gateway server selecting the transport computer)
claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating and displaying, with each protocol option, a rule-based explanation produced by a rules engine describing why the option was suggested based on system parameters. p36
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving weighted user-selected attributes and computing, by a ranking module, a ranked list of protocol options by applying the weighted attributes to a protocol-performance data structure based on the weighted attributes and protocol-capability metadata stored in a protocol-data repository. p 99
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the one or more processors, a feature vector that includes transaction-request parameters and the user-confirmed protocol; and
training, by the processors, a machine-learning model using the feature vector to predict protocol recommendations for future transaction requests. p146
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the attribute selected by the user comprises a protocol-related performance attribute including at least one of: protocol-specific transmission speed, transmission cost, or a transaction-type characteristic requiring particular protocol capabilities. p 101
6. The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the alternative protocol option comprises:
identifying, by the one or more processors, that a user selection constitutes a rejection of a currently displayed protocol; and
excluding the rejected protocol from a candidate protocol set and identifying a next-best protocol based on attribute satisfaction rules. Figure 9 A/ 9B
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction request comprises a value parameter, and wherein rendering the initial set of protocol options comprises:
comparing, by a processor, the value parameter to one or more protocol-eligibility thresholds; and
filtering out protocols whose thresholds are exceeded. Figure 9A and 9B
Claim(s) 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham
US Patent 11888729 in view of Jayaram US Patent Pub #20210352142
The reference fails to teach claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the user-confirmed protocol comprises a blockchain-based protocol, the method further comprising:
converting a value parameter of the transaction request into a protocol-compatible representation; and
updating, via a blockchain interface, a digital-asset ledger associated with a recipient endpoint. The reference teaches at 172 converting a value parameter of the transaction request into a protocol-compatible representation but lacks the presenting this to a blockchain. Jayaram teaches the use of FEDWIRE and other protocols on the Blockchain p87 and p88. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to have combined the references and to update the results of the Abraham to the blockchain as motivated by the security and distributed nature of the blockchain.
Claims 9-16 are the system equivalent of the claims 1-7 and are rejected based on the corresponding form paragraphs.
Claims 17-20 are the computer readable medium equivalents of claims 1-7 and are rejected based on the corresponding form paragraphs.
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 571-270-0508. 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.
RICHARD C. WEISBERGER
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights