DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of the Application
Applicant's submission filed on April 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7, and 21 were amended. Claims 1-22 remain pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-22 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1, for implementing energy settlements, comprising: i) a first sub-system configured to capture energy deals and transactions information from both party and counterparty sources and further configured to reconcile the information, the first sub-system comprising: executing that ingests a first set of data and transactions from a party's (buyer) Energy Trading and Risk Management (ETRM); executing that ingests a second set of data and transactions from a counterparty's (seller) ETRM; a Private Permissioned that receives deals and transactions data from the party; deals and transactions data from the counterparty; authenticated transaction data from a Notary; currency exchange rate data through a Currency Exchange Rate Oracle; and commodity exchange rate data through a Commodity Exchange Rate Oracle; and a Reconciliation that matches deals and transactions submitted by the party and the counterparty using the authenticated transaction data from the Notary to achieve consensus and emits reconciliation status to the party, the counterparty, and an Interoperability; ii) a second sub-system configured to attest to the data submitted by the party and the counterparty; the second sub-system comprising: the Notary configured to ingest authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator; i1i) a third sub-system configured to support payment settlements on a Public; the third sub-system comprising: the Interoperability that, upon a successful reconciliation status, initiates settlement processing per-transaction to eliminate manual reconciliation delays and enable immediate settlement, verifies whether the party (buyer) has sufficient funds to process the settlement by resolving an address for the buyer, invoking a Contract on the Public to retrieve current funds balance, comparing available funds to funds to be disbursed, and forecasting whether the buyer has sufficient funds for future fixed price deals, and notifies the party (buyer) of a corresponding balance; and a Custody/Institutional configured to send a signed transaction to the Contract on the Public, responsive to a request from the Interoperability; wherein responsive to a signed transaction from the Custody/Institutional, the Contract on the Public effectuates the settlement between the party and the counterparty, and wherein the Interoperability provides between the Private Permissioned and Public by: interfacing with the Private Permissioned as the Private Permissioned and receiving- reconciliation status from the Private Permissioned sent; submitting balance notifications to the Private Permissioned; resolving the address for the buyer; interfacing with the contract on the Public; facilitating communication between the Private Permissioned and Public comprising one or more transfer requests from or to the resolved address, at least one transaction confirmation from the contract, and at least one payment status between the Private Permissioned and Public; receiving-, by the Interoperability, transaction confirmation from the Contract on the Public; and sending-, by the Interoperability, updated payment status to the Private Permissioned, wherein the updated payment status is relayed to the party and the counterparty through the Private Permissioned. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 2 -: 2, claim 1, wherein the deals and transactions information from the ETRMs are published to a Private Permissioned. Claim 3 -: 3, claim 1, wherein the authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator is published to a Private Permissioned. Claim 4 -: 4, claim 1, wherein the Reconciliation is deployed on the Private Permissioned to reconcile one or more deals between a party and a counterparty. Claim 5 -: 5, claim 1, wherein the Interoperability acts by capturing the reconciled transactions on the Private Permissioned and initiating the settlement process for those transactions on the Public. Claim 6 -: 6, claim 1, wherein the Interoperability integrates with a Custody/Institutional to transfer assets between the party and counterparty. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 7 -: 7, a method for implementing energy settlements configured to solve problems of manual reconciliation, delayed settlements, and lack of interoperability, the method comprising the steps of: ingesting a first set of data and transactions from a party's (buyer) Energy Trading and Risk Management (ETRM); ingesting a second set of data and transactions from a counterparty's (seller) ETRM; ingesting authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator; publishing to a Private Permissioned deals and transactions data from the party; deals and transactions data... [id. at 1], the authenticated transaction data from the third-party data aggregator; currency exchange rate data through a Currency Exchange Rate Oracle; commodity exchange rate data through a Commodity Exchange Rate Oracle; reconciling deals and transactions via a Reconciliation; using authenticated transaction data from the third-party data aggregator to achieve consensus; emitting reconciliation status to the party, the counterparty, and an Interoperability; providing between the Private Permissioned and Public by: interfacing with the Private... resolving the address for... interfacing with the contract... facilitating communication... [id. at 1], submitting, by the Interoperability, balance notifications to the Private Permissioned; receiving-, by the Interoperability... [id. at 1], sending-, by the Interoperability, updated payment status to the Private Permissioned, wherein the updated payment status is relayed to the party and the counterparty through the Private Permissioned; responsive to a reconciliation status from the Private Permissioned; initiating settlement processing per-transaction to eliminate manual reconciliation delays and enable immediate settlement; and verifying via the Interoperability whether the party (buyer) has sufficient funds to process the settlement by resolving the buyer's address, invoking the Contract on the Public to retrieve current funds balance, comparing available funds to funds to be disbursed, and forecasting whether the buyer has sufficient funds for future fixed price deals; wherein sending- a request to a Custody/Institutional initiates the settlement; responsive to a request from the Interoperability, sending- a signed transaction from the Custody/Institutional to a Contract on a Public; and responsive to a signed transaction from the Custody/Institutional, executing a transfer of assets between the party and the counterparty via the Contract on the Public. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 8 -: 8, the method of claim 7, wherein the deals and transactions... [id. at 2], Claim 9 -: 9, the method of claim 7, wherein the authenticated... [id. at 3], Claim 10 -: 10, the method of claim 7, wherein the Reconciliation... [id. at 4], Claim 11 -: 11, the method of claim 7, wherein the Reconciliation applies a weighted logic to one or more attributes of the deals and transactions information submitted by the party and counterparty to determine a match. Claim 12 -: 12, the method of claim 7, wherein the authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator is used to attest to the information submitted by the party and counterparty. Claim 13 -: 13, the method of claim 7, wherein the Interoperability captures the reconciliation status to provide the transactions being reconciled on the Private. Claim 14 -: 14, the method of claim 7, wherein the Interoperability invokes the Contract on the Public to identity balance and make a determination if a payment settlement can be initiated to provide funds verification and forecasting capabilities. Claim 15 -: 15, the method of claim 7, wherein the Interoperability creates a request for the Custody/Institutional to transfer assets between the party and the counterparty. Claim 16 -: 16, the method of claim 7, wherein the Custody/ sends a signed transaction to the Contract on the Public. Claim 17 -: 17, the method of claim 7, wherein the Contract on the Public executes the transfer of assets between the party and the counterparty. Claim 18 -: 18, the method of claim 7, wherein the Custody/Institutional captures the transaction confirmation from the Contract and forwards the confirmation to the Interoperability. Claim 19 -: 19, the method of claim 7, wherein the Interoperability sends the payment settlement status for a particular transaction to the Private. Claim 20 -: 20, the method of claim 7, wherein the payment status is communicated to the party and the counterparty through the Private. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 21 -: 21, for implementing energy settlements configured to solve problems of manual reconciliation, delayed settlements, and lack of interoperability, comprising: i) a first sub-system configured to capture energy deals and transactions information from both party and counterparty sources and further configured to reconcile the information, the first sub-system comprising; executing that ingests a... executing that ingests a... a Private Permissioned that... [id. at 1], deals and transactions data from the counterparty; and authenticated transaction data from a Notary; and a Reconciliation that matches deals and transactions submitted by the party and the counterparty using the authenticated transaction data from the Notary to achieve consensus and emits reconciliation status; ii) a second sub-system configured to attest to the data submitted by the party and the counterparty; and i1i) a third sub-system configured to support payment settlements on a Public including, upon a successful reconciliation status, initiating settlement processing at a per-transaction granularity level to eliminate manual reconciliation delays and enable immediate settlement, wherein an Interoperability provides between the Private Permissioned and the Public by: interfacing with the Private Permissioned as the Private Permissioned and receiving- reconciliation status from the Private Permissioned; submitting balance notifications to the Private Permissioned; and sending- updated payment status to the Private Permissioned, wherein the updated payment status is relayed to the party and the counterparty through the Private Permissioned. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 22 -: 22, claim 1, wherein at least one confirmed energy trade deal is selectively ingested from the ETRM, such that the at least one confirmed energy trade deal and transaction is selectively matched based on at least one business rule, and the currency exchange rate is used to determine a settlement value associated with the at least one confirmed energy trade deal and transaction. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: tokenized energy settlements application, wherein systems and methods disclosed are directed to a tokenized energy settlements application; by combining capabilities to automate reconciliation, attest to transactions, and automate payment settlements for the energy industry, an embodiment of the present invention enables organizations to accelerate their post trade processes of transaction reconciliation and payment settlement as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1, 7, and 21 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 7 and is described by the steps of independent claim 21.
Claim 1: Specifically regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes an additional element of " system", "tokenized", "application", "node executing software", " Blockchain", "Node", "Smart Contract", "automatically", "real-time", "digital", "wallet", "Token", "Wallet", " module", "technical", "node", "receiving", "token". However, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because " system", "tokenized", "application", "node executing software", " Blockchain", "Node", "Smart Contract", "automatically", "real-time", "digital", "wallet", "Token", "Wallet", " module", "technical", "node", "receiving", "token" of independent claim 1 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a system for implementing a … application, the system comprising", "i) a first sub-system configured … the first sub-system comprising", "a node executing software that … Risk Management (ETRM) system", "a node executing software that … counterparty's (seller) ETRM system", "a Private Permissioned Blockchain that … data from the party", "deals and transactions data from the counterparty", "authenticated transaction data from a Notary Node", "currency exchange rate data through … Exchange Rate Oracle; and", "commodity exchange rate data through … Exchange Rate Oracle; and", "a Reconciliation Smart Contract that … and an Interoperability Node", "ii) a second sub-system configured … party and the counterparty", "the second sub-system comprising", "the Notary Node configured to … a third-party data aggregator", "i1i) a third sub-system configured … on a Public Blockchain", "the third sub-system comprising", "the Interoperability Node that, upon … fixed price deals, and", "notifies the party (buyer) of a corresponding balance; and", "a Custody/Institutional Wallet module configured … from the Interoperability Node", "wherein responsive to a signed … and the counterparty, and", "wherein the Interoperability Node provides … and Public Blockchain by", "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "submitting balance notifications to the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "resolving the digital wallet address for the buyer", "interfacing with the token contract on the Public Blockchain", "facilitating communication between the Private … Blockchain and Public Blockchain", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and" and "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and", "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the "a system for implementing a … application, the system comprising", "i) a first sub-system configured … the first sub-system comprising", "a node executing software that … Risk Management (ETRM) system", "a node executing software that … counterparty's (seller) ETRM system", "a Private Permissioned Blockchain that … data from the party", "authenticated transaction data from a Notary Node", "currency exchange rate data through … Exchange Rate Oracle; and", "commodity exchange rate data through … Exchange Rate Oracle; and", "a Reconciliation Smart Contract that … and an Interoperability Node", "ii) a second sub-system configured … party and the counterparty", "the second sub-system comprising", "the Notary Node configured to … a third-party data aggregator", "i1i) a third sub-system configured … on a Public Blockchain", "the third sub-system comprising", "the Interoperability Node that, upon … fixed price deals, and", "notifies the party (buyer) of a corresponding balance; and", "a Custody/Institutional Wallet module configured … from the Interoperability Node", "wherein responsive to a signed … and the counterparty, and", "wherein the Interoperability Node provides … and Public Blockchain by", "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "submitting balance notifications to the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "resolving the digital wallet address for the buyer", "interfacing with the token contract on the Public Blockchain", "facilitating communication between the Private … Blockchain and Public Blockchain", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and", "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain" step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional method step comprises or includes: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and", "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 7: Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 7 further to the abstract idea includes an additional element of "tokenized", "application", "technical", "blockchain networks", " system", " Blockchain", "Smart Contract", "Node", "solution", "node", "receiving", "digital", "wallet", "token", "Token", "sending", "automatically", "real-time". However, independent claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "tokenized", "application", "technical", "blockchain networks", " system", " Blockchain", "Smart Contract", "Node", "solution", "node", "receiving", "digital", "wallet", "token", "Token", "sending", "automatically", "real-time" of independent claim 7 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a method for implementing a … comprising the steps of", "ingesting a first set of … Risk Management (ETRM) system", "ingesting a second set of … counterparty's (seller) ETRM system", "ingesting authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator", "publishing to a Private Permissioned … data from the party", "deals and transactions data from the counterparty", "the authenticated transaction data from the third-party data aggregator", "currency exchange rate data through … Currency Exchange Rate Oracle", "commodity exchange rate data through … Commodity Exchange Rate Oracle", "reconciling deals and transactions via a Reconciliation Smart Contract", "using authenticated transaction data from … aggregator to achieve consensus", "emitting reconciliation status to the … and an Interoperability Node", "providing a technical bridge solution … and Public Blockchain by", "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "resolving the digital wallet address for the buyer", "interfacing with the token contract on the Public Blockchain", "facilitating communication between the Private … Blockchain and Public Blockchain", "submitting, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and", "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "responsive to a reconciliation status … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "automatically initiating real-time settlement processing … enable immediate settlement; and", "verifying via the Interoperability Node … future fixed price deals", "wherein sending a request to … module initiates the settlement", "responsive to a request from … a Public Blockchain; and" and "responsive to a signed transaction … on the Public Blockchain") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and", "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the "a method for implementing a … comprising the steps of", "ingesting a first set of … Risk Management (ETRM) system", "ingesting a second set of … counterparty's (seller) ETRM system", "ingesting authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator", "publishing to a Private Permissioned … data from the party", "the authenticated transaction data from the third-party data aggregator", "currency exchange rate data through … Currency Exchange Rate Oracle", "commodity exchange rate data through … Commodity Exchange Rate Oracle", "reconciling deals and transactions via a Reconciliation Smart Contract", "using authenticated transaction data from … aggregator to achieve consensus", "emitting reconciliation status to the … and an Interoperability Node", "providing a technical bridge solution … and Public Blockchain by", "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "resolving the digital wallet address for the buyer", "interfacing with the token contract on the Public Blockchain", "facilitating communication between the Private … Blockchain and Public Blockchain", "submitting, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and", "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "responsive to a reconciliation status … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "automatically initiating real-time settlement processing … enable immediate settlement; and", "verifying via the Interoperability Node … future fixed price deals", "wherein sending a request to … module initiates the settlement", "responsive to a request from … a Public Blockchain; and", "responsive to a signed transaction … on the Public Blockchain" step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. Furthermore, the additional method step comprises or includes: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … sent to the node", "receiving, by the Interoperability Node, … the Public Blockchain; and", "sending, by the Interoperability Node, … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 1 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 21: Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 21 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of " system", "tokenized", "application", "technical", "blockchain networks", "node executing software", " Blockchain", "Node", "Smart Contract", "automatically", "real-time", "node", "receiving", and "sending". However, independent claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because " system", "tokenized", "application", "technical", "blockchain networks", "node executing software", " Blockchain", "Node", "Smart Contract", "automatically", "real-time", "node", "receiving", and "sending" of independent claim 21 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a system for implementing a … networks, the system comprising", "i) a first sub-system configured … the first sub-system comprising", "a node executing software that … Risk Management (ETRM) system", "a node executing software that … counterparty's (seller) ETRM system", "a Private Permissioned Blockchain that … data from the party", "deals and transactions data from the counterparty; and", "authenticated transaction data from a Notary Node; and", "a Reconciliation Smart Contract that … and emits reconciliation status", "ii) a second sub-system configured … and the counterparty; and", "i1i) a third sub-system configured … and enable immediate settlement", "wherein an Interoperability Node provides … the Public Blockchain by", "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "submitting balance notifications to the Private Permissioned Blockchain; and" and "sending updated payment status to … the Private Permissioned Blockchain") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "sending updated payment status to … the Private Permissioned Blockchain" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the "a system for implementing a … networks, the system comprising", "i) a first sub-system configured … the first sub-system comprising", "a node executing software that … Risk Management (ETRM) system", "a node executing software that … counterparty's (seller) ETRM system", "a Private Permissioned Blockchain that … data from the party", "authenticated transaction data from a Notary Node; and", "a Reconciliation Smart Contract that … and emits reconciliation status", "ii) a second sub-system configured … and the counterparty; and", "i1i) a third sub-system configured … and enable immediate settlement", "wherein an Interoperability Node provides … the Public Blockchain by", "interfacing with the Private Permissioned … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", "submitting balance notifications to the Private Permissioned Blockchain; and", "sending updated payment status to … the Private Permissioned Blockchain" step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "sending updated payment status to … the Private Permissioned Blockchain", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 1 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 21 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1, 7, and 21 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 2-6, 8-20, and 22 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13: Dependent claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "functionality" of dependent claim 13 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14: Dependent claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "automated" of dependent claim 14 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 8: Dependent claims 2 and 8 add additional method steps of "wherein the deals and transactions information from the ETRM systems are published to a Private Permissioned Blockchain". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 2 and 8 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) Dependent claims 2 and 8 further do not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the deals and transactions information from the ETRM systems are published to a Private Permissioned Blockchain" steps and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 2 and 8 are ineligible.
Claims 3 and 9: Dependent claims 3 and 9 add an additional method step of "wherein the authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator is published to a Private Permissioned Blockchain". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 3 and 9 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) Dependent claims 3 and 9 further do not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator is published to a Private Permissioned Blockchain" step and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 3 and 9 are ineligible.
Claims 4 and 10: Dependent claims 4 and 10 add additional method steps of "wherein the Reconciliation Smart Contract is deployed on the Private Permissioned Blockchain to reconcile one or more deals between a party and a counterparty". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 4 and 10 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) Dependent claims 4 and 10 further do not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the Reconciliation Smart Contract is deployed on the Private Permissioned Blockchain to reconcile one or more deals between a party and a counterparty" steps and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 4 and 10 are ineligible.
Claim 5: Dependent claim 5 adds additional method steps of "wherein the Interoperability Node acts as a bridge by capturing the reconciled transactions on the Private Permissioned and initiating the settlement process for those transactions on the Public Blockchain". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 5 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6: Dependent claim 6 adds additional method steps of "wherein the Interoperability Node integrates with a Custody/Institutional Wallet module to transfer assets between the party and counterparty". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 6 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 11: Dependent claim 11 adds additional method steps of "wherein the Reconciliation Smart Contract applies a weighted logic to one or more attributes of the deals and transactions information submitted by the party and counterparty to determine a match". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 11 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) Dependent claim 11 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the Reconciliation Smart Contract applies a weighted logic to one or more attributes of the deals and transactions information submitted by the party and counterparty to determine a match" steps and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 adds additional method steps of "wherein the authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator is used to attest to the information submitted by the party and counterparty". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 12 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) Dependent claim 12 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the authenticated transaction data from a third-party data aggregator is used to attest to the information submitted by the party and counterparty" steps and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13: Dependent claim 13 adds an additional method step of "wherein the Interoperability Node automatically captures the reconciliation status to provide technical bridge functionality of the transactions being reconciled on the Private Blockchain". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 13 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14: Dependent claim 14 adds additional method steps of "wherein the Interoperability Node invokes the Token Contract on the Public Blockchain to identity balance and make a determination if a payment settlement can be initiated to provide automated funds verification and forecasting capabilities". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 14 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15: Dependent claim 15 adds additional method steps of "wherein the Interoperability Node creates a request for the Custody/Institutional Wallet module to transfer assets between the party and the counterparty". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 15 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16: Dependent claim 16 adds an additional method step of "wherein the Custody/Wallet module sends a signed transaction to the Token Contract on the Public Blockchain". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 16 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17: Dependent claim 17 adds additional method steps of "wherein the Token Contract on the Public Blockchain executes the transfer of digital assets between the party and the counterparty". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 17 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) Dependent claim 17 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the Token Contract on the Public Blockchain executes the transfer of digital assets between the party and the counterparty" steps and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18: Dependent claim 18 adds additional method steps of "wherein the Custody/Institutional Wallet module captures the transaction confirmation from the Token Contract and forwards the confirmation to the Interoperability Node". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 18 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19: Dependent claim 19 adds an additional method step of "wherein the Interoperability Node sends the payment settlement status for a particular transaction to the Private Blockchain". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 19 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20: Dependent claim 20 adds additional method steps of "wherein the payment status is communicated to the party and the counterparty through the Private Blockchain". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 20 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) Dependent claim 20 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the payment status is communicated to the party and the counterparty through the Private Blockchain" steps and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim 22: Dependent claim 22 adds additional method steps of "wherein at least one confirmed energy trade deal is selectively ingested from the ETRM", "such that the at least one confirmed energy trade deal and transaction is selectively matched based on at least one business rule, and", "the currency exchange rate is used to determine a settlement value associated with the at least one confirmed energy trade deal and transaction". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 22 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 2 and 8 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 2 and 8 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 22 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted April 16, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed January 16, 2026 (hereinafter "Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the January 16, 2026 Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• The Applicant argued:
"[C]laims 1-22 [] rejected under 35 U.S.C. [] 101 as [] directed to an abstract idea without significantly more[:] Applicant respectfully disagrees. []
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the Office's analysis oversimplifies the technical claim limitations and fails to adequately account for the specific requirements of the claims.
'The amended claims address a concrete technical problem identified in the Specification, namely, the lack of interoperability between blockchain networks. As described in the Specification, "[s]ome of the challenges with the current process may include manual reconciliation, delayed settlements, high operating expenses, limited ability to scale and no single source of truth," and "the current process is manual, labor intensive and requires an extended timeline which significantly delays settlement and payment." Specification, [par.] [0018]. The Specification describes a technical solution to this problem through the Interoperability Node, which "tracks transactions that have been successfully reconciled on Private Blockchain 320 and acts as a bridge to settle the transactions on Public Blockchain 338." Id. at [par.] [0027].
'The amended claims now recite a complete bidirectional technical communication loop where the Interoperability Node performs specific technical operations including: (1) interfacing with the Private Permissioned Blockchain as a node and receiving reconciliation status; (2) resolving digital wallet addresses and interfacing with the Token Contract on the Public Blockchain; (3) submitting balance notifications to the Private Permissioned Blockchain; (4) receiving transaction confirmation from the Token Contract on the Public Blockchain; and (5) sending updated payment status to the Private Permissioned Blockchain, which is then relayed to the parties. These technical operations are supported by the paragraphs [0046]-[0049] of the Specification. [T]he Specification explains that "Interoperability Node 334 may submit balance notifications to Private Blockchain 320 and as a consequence of that, notifies the buyer." Id. at [0046]. The Specification further describes that "[t]ransaction confirmation may then be sent from the Token Contract on Public Blockchain 338 to Custody/Institutional Wallet 336 (step 10a) and Interoperability Node 334 (step 10b)," and that "Interoperability Node 334 sends the updated payment status (step 11) to Private Blockchain 320 and then the payment status is relayed to the Buyer Node 306 (step 12a) and Seller Node 316 (step 12b)." Id. at [par.] [0048].
"Applicant respectfully submits that under prong 2, the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The technical problem of blockchain interoperability--enabling communication and coordination between fundamentally different blockchain architectures (Private Permissioned vs. Public)--is a recognized challenge in distributed computing systems. The Interoperability Node's bidirectional coordination between these two blockchain networks, including receiving reconciliation status from one network, checking balances on another, submitting balance notifications back to the first network, receiving transaction confirmations, and relaying payment status, represents an improvement to blockchain technology itself, not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computers.
'Applicant submits that the Office's characterization of the blockchain components as "generic" is erroneous and fails to account for the specific requirements of the claims as required by the Ex Parte Desjardins guidance. The specific technical architecture recited in the claimswhere an Interoperability Node operates as a node on a Private Permissioned Blockchain while simultaneously coordinating with a Token Contract on a Public Blockchain, managing bidirectional data flows including reconciliation status, balance notifications, transfer requests, transaction confirmations, and payment status--cannot reasonably be characterized as generic computer functions. This is a particular technical solution to the technical problem of crosschain interoperability, not merely the idea of a solution.
'Applicant further submits that the Office's assertion that blockchain operations could be "manually performed by a human" fundamentally mischaracterizes the inherent technical nature of blockchain technology. Blockchains are distributed ledger technologies that require cryptographic operations, consensus mechanisms, and networked computer nodes to function. A Private Permissioned Blockchain and a Public Blockchain are specific technical constructs with defined technical characteristics. The operations recited in the claims--such as a node interfacing with a Private Permissioned Blockchain, invoking a Token Contract on a Public Blockchain, receiving transaction confirmations from a Token Contract, and relaying payment status through a blockchain networkùare inherently technical operations that cannot be performed manually by a human.
"[] Applicant respectfully asserts that the present claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. [] 101[].
"[I]t is respectfully submitted that this application is now in condition for allowance. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 12-17).
Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments submitted April 16, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 12-17 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Considerably, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The abstract subject matter of Applicant's further limited amended claims is claimed at a high level of generality linked to technical environment.
The Federal Circuit has held that "communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network" is itself an abstract idea. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d at 108516: "It is clear from the language of claim 1 that the claim involves an abstract idea--namely, the abstract idea of communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network. [] We therefore continue our analysis to determine whether the focus of claim 1, as a whole, is the abstract idea. As explained below, we conclude that it is." ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 108512 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit has held that "communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network" is itself an abstract idea. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d at 108516: "It is clear from the language of claim 1 that the claim involves an abstract idea--namely, the abstract idea of communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network. [] We therefore continue our analysis to determine whether the focus of claim 1, as a whole, is the abstract idea. As explained below, we conclude that it is." ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 108512 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the claims neither recite nor require "complete bidirectional technical communication loop" or "fundamentally different blockchain architectures" or "simultaneously coordinating". See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
With respect to the Ex Parte Desjardins court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office finds that the legal holdings of Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In the process of considering the precise facts and the precise holdings of Ex Parte Desjardins in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in the Desjardins precedential decision, in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of "catastrophic forgetting," and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification; indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system; such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.. Nevertheless, the precise facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are considerably different from the material facts in Ex Parte Desjardins regarding Desjardins's holdings. In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks; the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification; specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept); in Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of "catastrophic forgetting" encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task" reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification; accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). In contrast, the Applicant's alleged invention involves tokenized energy settlements application, and the claims herein examined in the Applicant's pending matter do not entail an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem amounting to an inventive concept, do not confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system, do not reflect a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of "catastrophic forgetting" in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity, do not involve a method of training a machine learning model directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally include data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values, and also do not otherwise involve the same facts as those ruled upon in the precedential Desjardins decision, but rather instead involve materially contradistinctive facts, recite concepts similar to previously identified abstract ideas, and are affirmatively directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the pertinent material facts in the instant pending Application are substantially dissimilar to the facts in Ex Parte Desjardins. Consequently, the Office concludes that the legal holdings of Ex Parte Desjardins can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20190266577 A1 by Baldet; Amber et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRIVATE SETTLEMENT OF DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20200160288 A1 by Bauerschmidt; Paul et al. discloses PHYSICALLY SETTLED FUTURES DELIVERY SYSTEM.
USPAT No. US 10529041 B2 to Brown; Richard Gendal et al. discloses System and method for managing transactions in dynamic digital documents.
USPAT No. US 10762506 B1 to Cash; Duane et al. discloses Token device for distributed ledger based interchange.
USPGPub No. US 20180101848 A1 by Castagna; Brandon Matthew et al. discloses SYSTEM FOR MANAGING A VIRTUAL PRIVATE LEDGER AND DISTRIBUTING WORKFLOW OF AUTHENTICATED TRANSACTIONS WITHIN A BLOCKCHAIN DISTRIBUTED NETWORK.
USPAT No. US 11651353 B1 to Cook; Carson Raymond discloses Platform for coordinated credit-based and non-custodial digital asset settlement.
USPAT No. US 6629081 B1 to Cornelius; Richard D. et al. discloses Account settlement and financing in an e-commerce environment.
USPAT No. US 7069234 B1 to Cornelius; Richard D. et al. discloses Initiating an agreement in an e-commerce environment.
USPGPub No. US 20200074461 A1 by DeRosa-Grund; H. Anthony discloses NOVEL BLOCKCHAIN ARCHITECTURE, SYSTEM, METHOD AND DEVICE FOR AUTOMATED CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY LAW COMPLIANCE WITH PROPRIETARY OFF-CHAIN STORAGE MECHANISM.
USPGPub No. US 20200342539 A1 by Doney; George Daniel discloses SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND STORAGE MEDIA FOR MANAGING DIGITAL LIQUIDITY TOKENS IN A DISTRIBUTED LEDGER PLATFORM.
USPGPub No. US 20200267020 A1 by Doney; George Daniel et al. discloses METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM FOR TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT SPANNING MULTIPLE HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTING NETWORKS.
USPGPub No. US 20180253702 A1 by Dowding; Paul F. discloses BLOCKCHAIN SOLUTIONS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS-BASED INDUSTRIES.
USPAT No. US 11494766 B2 to Fang; Hui et al. discloses Managing transactions on blockchain networks.
USPGPub No. US 20210201328 A1 by GUNTHER; Christian discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING TRANSACTIONS IN DYNAMIC DIGITAL DOCUMENTS.
USPAT No. US 10521775 B2 to Hearn; Michael Christopher et al. discloses Secure processing of electronic transactions by a decentralized, distributed ledger system.
USPGPub No. US 20190197620 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20190244292 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses EXOTIC CURRENCY SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20190325517 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses TRANSACTION NETTING SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20180285882 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20180322485 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses LEDGER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20190385172 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses TRADE FINANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20190228385 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses CLEARING SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20180204216 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses TRANSACTION SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20180268483 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses PROGRAMMABLE ASSET SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20180075536 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses MULTIPARTY RECONCILIATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20200074415 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses COLLATERAL OPTIMIZATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20190108586 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses DATA INGESTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20190156416 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses RISK AND LIQUIDITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20200294148 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses ANALYSIS SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPAT No. US 11288736 B1 to Jette; David et al. discloses Blockchain-based shared appreciation note.
USPGPub No. US 20140231509 A1 by LUOMA; Kristian et al. discloses COMMUNICATION BETWEEN RETAILER AND CUSTOMER.
USPAT No. US 7167844 B1 to Leong; Cheah Wee et al. discloses Electronic menu document creator in a virtual financial environment.
USPAT No. US 11514448 B1 to Liberman; Stanislav discloses Hierarchical consensus protocol framework for implementing electronic transaction processing systems.
USPGPub No. US 20190355059 A1 by Liberman; Stanislav et al. discloses SECURE DETERMINISTIC TOKENS FOR ENCRYPTING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20170293669 A1 by Madhavan; Ajay et al. discloses BILATERAL ASSERTION MODEL AND LEDGER IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF.
USPGPub No. US 20180373776 A1 by Madisetti; Vijay K. et al. discloses Method and System for Tuning Blockchain Scalability for Fast and Low-Cost Payment and Transaction Processing.
USPGPub No. US 20190228409 A1 by Madisetti; Vijay et al. discloses Transaction Pools Using Smart Contracts and Blockchains.
USPGPub No. US 20200151817 A1 by Mahfouz; Samer discloses TOKENIZED COMMODITY FOR MULTIPART TRANSACTIONS VALIDATED BY A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK OF NODES.
USPGPub No. US 20170011460 A1 by Molinari; Vincent et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRADING, CLEARING AND SETTLING SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS USING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY.
USPGPub No. US 20200387891 A1 by PASCHINI; Miles et al. discloses TOKENIZED ASSET BACKED BY GOVERNMENT BONDS AND IDENTITY AND RISK SCORING OF ASSOCIATED TOKEN TRANSACTIONS.
USPAT No. US 10580100 B2 to Pierce; Ryan et al. discloses Data payment and authentication via a shared data structure.
USPGPub No. US 20200119905 A1 by Revankar; Shriram Venkatesh Shet et al. discloses SMART CONTRACT PLATFORM FOR GENERATING AND CUSTOMIZING SMART CONTRACTS.
USPGPub No. US 20180091316 A1 by STRADLING; Adam et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROVIDING A MULTI-VALIDATOR ORACLE.
USPGPub No. US 20210042737 A1 by Starr; Avery discloses DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING ARCHITECTURE WITH SETTLEMENT MECHANISM TO ENABLE TRACEABILITY OF CREDIT TOKENIZATION, DISBURSEMENT AND REPAYMENT.
USPGPub No. US 20200159697 A1 by WOOD; Sam et al. discloses IMMUTABLE LEDGER WITH EFFICIENT AND SECURE DATA DESTRUCTION, SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20200111092 A1 by WOOD; Samuel et al. discloses FINANCIAL DERIVATIVE SMART CONTRACT EXECUTION PLATFORM, SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20020107062 A1 by Wong, Jacob Y. discloses Electronic game apparatus for guessing english acronyms.
USPGPub No. US 20190361842 A1 by Wood; Samuel et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EFFICIENT AND SECURE PRIVATE SIMILARITY DETECTION FOR LARGE PRIVATE DOCUMENT REPOSITORIES.
USPGPub No. US 20200279328 A1 by Zhiri; Mehdi et al. discloses Multi-party Financial Services Agreements.
USPGPub No. US 20140349692 A1 by Zhou; Andrew H B et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MESSAGING, CALLING, DIGITAL MULTIMEDIA CAPTURE AND PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20170053260 A1 by Zhou; Dylan T. X. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MESSAGING, CALLING, DIGITAL MULTIMEDIA CAPTURE AND PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20160189137 A1 by Zhou; Tiger T G et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING COMPENSATION, REBATE, CASHBACK, AND REWARD FOR USING MOBILE AND WEARABLE PAYMENT SERVICES, DIGITAL CURRENCY, NFC TOUCH PAYMENTS, MOBILE DIGITAL CARD BARCODE PAYMENTS, AND MULTIMEDIA HAPTIC CAPTURE BUYING.
USPGPub No. US 20150339696 A1 by Zhou; Tiger T. G. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING COMPENSATION, REBATE, CASHBACK, AND REWARD FOR USING MOBILE AND WEARABLE PAYMENT SERVICES.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM and Friday 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 06/16/2026
Prosecution Insights