From the USPTO PAIR database, "By this preliminary Amendment, claims 1-154 have been canceled..."
154 claims canceled?!? Typical patents have around 21 claims. USPTO charges per-claim over 21 total claims. JP Morgan's application had 170 claims — way beyond even a 3-sigma deviation for all patent applications. That is, it's amateurish. But, somehow they managed to avoid paying the $80/each for the excess claims.
It's actually pretty standard in many instances - i.e. there's nothing amateurish about it. Specifically, if someone comes up with a half dozen related-but-different inventions, it may be more efficient to write one giant application than a half dozen applications that repeat parts of each other. That one giant application may then have [drumroll] 170 claims. And when you file it, you actually file one and cancel claims 21-170 in a preliminary amendment on the filing date, "somehow managing to avoid paying the excess claims fees". And then later (or at the same time), you file a divisional application and cancel claims 1-20 and claims 41-170. And another canceling claims 1-40 and 61-170. Etc.
Let me guess... in spite of your description of this standard practice as "amateurish", you're not a professional in the field?
So, anyways, from the USPTO PAIR database — JP Morgan are claiming that their filing is under pre-AIA conditions. That is, that they are first to invent, and are not subject to the current first to file rules. Big difference. The inventor filed an "oath" regarding the invention date. Uh huh.
Well, yeah. This was first filed in 1999, long before the first to file rules. Of course it's subject to the first to invent rules. 1999 vs. 2013? Big difference. Uh huh.
USPTO also says, "Claims 155-175 are allowed over the prior art of record based on the earliest priority of the parent applications." I couldn't find the priority date that they are claiming, or whether it is before their filing date, but one might guess they are trying to get a pre-BitCoin patent priority date. Jerks.
You apparently couldn't find paragraph 1 of the application:
 This application is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 09/497,307 filed Feb. 3, 2000 and is based on and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Applications Nos. 60/132,305, filed May 3, 1999; 60/150,725, filed Aug. 25, 1999; 60/161,300, filed Oct. 26, 1999; 60/163,828, filed Nov. 5, 1999; and 60/173,044, filed Dec. 23, 1999, the entire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Gosh, being really clear about the priority dates? What a bunch of jerks.
If only someone knew of some actual prior art, and that this person also knew the name and contact information for the patent examiner. Hmmn...
Ah, here we are: From their non-final rejection, "Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAGDISH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6748." I'm sure he has an email address as well.
Yeah, go ahead and call the Examiner, in spite of the fact that it's explicitly illegal without a letter of authorization from the patent applicant:
[T]he Office prohibits third parties from submitting any protests under 37 CFR 1.291 or initiating any public use proceedings under 37 CFR 1.292 (without the express written consent of the applicant) after publication of an application... Office personnel (including the Patent Examining Corps) are instructed to: (1) not reply to any third-party inquiry or other submission in a published pending application; (2) not act upon any third-party inquiry or other submission in a published application, except for written submissions that are provided for in 37 CFR 1.99 and written submissions in applications in which the applicant has provided an express written consent to protest or pre-issuance opposition; and (3) decline to accept oral or telephone comments or submissions about published applications from third parties. When refusing third-party telephone or oral discussions, examiners may call the party’s attention to the statutory prohibition on initiating protests, or 37 CFR 1.2 (all Office business should be transacted in writing), as appropriate.
It would be far better to submit publications under 37 CFR 1.99. But maybe you think that's too amateurish, and that the professional response is to give the Examiner's phone number to 4chan. I'm sure that will never, ever backfire on you.