DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8 , 17-20 are rejected based on the language of independent claims 1,8 and 14 which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, in In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, ___ (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The limitation “ Asynchronously” (controlling the timing of operations by the use of pulses sent when the previous operation is completed rather than at regular intervals) is not described in the originally filed application.
In the present application, there is no description of the one or more processors b) asynchronously evaluate a plurality of transaction protocols via parallel processing threads for suitability based on real-time network traffic metrics monitored across a plurality of communication channels and predefined rules. Since important details about how the invention operates are not disclosed, it is not readily evident that Applicant has full possession of the invention at the time of filing (i.e., the original disclosure fails to provide adequate written description to support the claimed invention as a whole). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose in detail the specific steps or algorithm needed to perform the operation. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
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 1-8 and 17-20 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, 17: Ineligible.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 17 recites a product, 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:
(a) receive a transaction request;(b) asynchronously evaluate a plurality of transaction protocols via parallel processing threads for suitability based on real-time network traffic metrics monitored across a plurality of communication channels and predefined rules;(c) select, for the transaction request, either a single optimal protocol or initiate simultaneous transmission to multiple selected protocols; and(d) process the transaction according to a protocol that satisfies a predefined latency or throughput threshold or is a first-responding protocol.
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 one or more processors. 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 one or more processors 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 17-20 are the product and method of claims 1-8.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12401600.
The pending claims are directed to an apparatus computing device and the conflicting claim is directed to a method. The computing device rendered obvious by the method. If a method claims a process, and an apparatus is essential to practice that process, an application for the apparatus may be rejected under obviousness-type double patenting if it is not patentably distinct from the method patent.
Patented Claim
A system, the system comprising:one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:receive a transaction request comprising an identification of a sending account, an identification of a recipient account, and a value;
compare the value to a first threshold identified in one or more rules;
identify a first transaction protocol based on the comparison;select identify a first subset of computers of a plurality of subsets of computers based on the identified first transaction protocol, each of the plurality of subsets of computers corresponding to a different transaction protocol;
[[and]] identify a percentage of network packets the processor transmitted across one or more first connections between the processor and the first subset of computers;determine the identified percentage of network packets is above a second threshold;
identify a second transaction protocol;adjust the identified first transaction protocol from the identified first transaction protocol to the identified second transaction protocol in response to the determining the identified percentage of network packets is above the second threshold;
select a second subset of computers of the plurality of subsets of computers based on the identified second transaction protocol; and transmit a message to each computer of the first second subset of computers indicating the transaction request, receipt of the message causing each computer of the first second subset of computers to complete a transaction corresponding to the transaction request between the sending account and the recipient account.
The reference claim anticipates the pending claim under examination as the reference claim is to a species and the claim under examination is to the genus that encompasses that specie.
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) 1-8 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham US Patent 11888729 in view of McKiernan US Patent Pub 20180224883
Claim 1
(a) receive a transaction request;(b) evaluate a plurality of transaction protocols via parallel processing threads for suitability based on real-time network traffic metrics monitored across a plurality of communication channels and predefined rules; p 117 p127
(c) select, for the transaction request, either a single optimal protocol or initiate simultaneous transmission to multiple selected protocols; p 20.
The reference fails to expressly teach of asynchronously evaluating a plurality of transaction.
McKiernan teaches the use of message synchronization. The A method for time synchronization of asynchronously running processing systems p 0004.
While the specification fails to teach the steps carried out for the asynchronously evaluating, the examiner interprets this term per industry accepted definitions. As the computer messages are routinely send with in sequence or in parallel, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to have evaluated the options asynchronously as motivated by the well known advantages and short coming of computer message routing. The applicant’s specification lacks any teaching of a technological problem resolved by asynchronously evaluating that challenges the examiners motivational reasoning and accordingly it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time to have combined the teaching as motivated by executing of the first protocol without waiting for a response from a second protocol and without need to synchronize the time of execution of the first and second protocol return messages.
2. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein simultaneous transmission to multiple protocols is affected to ensure redundancy and failover resilience, with subsequent cancellation of duplicate transactions for protocols not ultimately used. See cited paragraphs to the rejection to claim 1 as the language of this claim beyond that of claim 1 is nonlimiting.
3. (Original) The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a protocol-specific termination command to each of the multiple selected protocols that did not provide a completion acknowledgment responsive to receiving a completion acknowledgment from the first-responding protocol. P 127
4. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify a volume of network packets currently being processed by a subset of computers associated with a first transaction protocol of the plurality of transaction protocols;
and exclude the first transaction protocol from the selection in step (c) responsive to the volume of network packets exceeding a congestion threshold. P 6
5. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein evaluating the plurality of transaction protocols includes determining a protocol-specific cost for each protocol, and wherein the selection of the single optimal protocol is further based on identifying a protocol that
satisfies a maximum cost threshold. P 53, p 76
6. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: establish a plurality of persistent communication sessions with different subsets of computers, each subset corresponding to one of the plurality of transaction protocols;
and utilize the persistent communication sessions to reduce handshake latency during the simultaneous transmission. P 23
7. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: input real-time network traffic metrics into a machine learning model; and
receive from the machine learning model a prediction of a protocol response time, wherein evaluating suitability is based on the prediction. P 42 – where machine learning model is broadly construed.
8. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transaction request comprises a value, and wherein evaluating suitability comprises determining whether the value exceeds a transaction limit defined in the predefined rules for at least one of the plurality of transaction protocols.
and(d) process the transaction according to a protocol that satisfies a predefined latency or throughput threshold or is a first-responding protocol. P 53
Claims 17-20 are the computer product equivalents of claims 1-8 and are rejected based on the same 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 571-272-0580. 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
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
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
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights