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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 26, 2025 has been entered. Claims 19, 26, and 33 were amended. Claims 19-38 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 19 and 26 have rendered moot the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 19-32 previously set forth in the Final Correspondence mailed July 22, 2025.
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 19-38 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 19-38 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 19 -: 19, a method for a private and permissioned distributed ledger that records changes in ownership of securities and cash resulting from settlement of securities transactions between participants of a settlement service, comprising: receiving a first order for equities to be executed by an exchange over links, wherein the settlement can occur on any one of T+O, T+1, or T+2 days after a trade date, and wherein the first order is signed with a first signature of a first participant; generating a first data block based on the first order of equities; appending the first data block to an end representing a primary ledger at a first level of a hierarchy of ledgers, wherein the equities are moved from a depository trust corporation (DTC) to the primary ledger, the private and permissioned distributed ledger is a DTC participant, and the first data block and the primary ledger are immutable; determining that the first data block is relevant representing a secondary ledger at a second level of the hierarchy of ledgers, wherein the and the secondary ledger are immutable and wherein the secondary ledger is made available to the DTC for the DTC to service custodian assets; appending the first data block; completing a fast track settlement process to process the first order for equities, based on a determination that the first signature is valid, wherein the fast track settlement process processes the first order for equities faster than a traditional settlement process, wherein the fast track settlement process is decentralized, processed, and observed by a plurality of workers and supervisors each associated with the primary ledger for redundant verification, wherein the plurality of workers are dynamically spawned to handle a variable real-time load, and wherein the plurality of supervisors dynamically allocate jobs to the plurality of workers; verifying the first order of equities by a first and a second to provide immutability across the distributed ledger; sending instructions that effectuate transfer of the securities and cash simultaneously with the fast track settlement process for the first order for equities; and upon determining that the first signature is valid, preventing a double spending problem by: creating a timestamp associated with the first data block, the timestamp indicating a priority of a transaction associated with the first data block; determining whether at least two transactions are simultaneous; upon determining that the at least two transactions are simultaneous, checking whether an attempt to create the double spending problem occurred; and upon determining that the attempt to create the double spending problem occurred, reversing at least one of the at least two transactions. (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 20 -: 20, the method of claim 19, wherein the first signature is based on at least one of private or public keys. Claim 21 -: 21, the method of claim 19, wherein determining that the first data block is relevant comprises determining that at least one of a first clearing instruction or a first trade report references the secondary ledger at the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers. Claim 22 -: 22, the method of claim 19, wherein the first level of the hierarchy of ledgers includes fewer ledgers than the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers. Claim 23 -: 23, the method of claim 19, comprising: receiving a second order for equities to be executed by the exchange, the second order being signed with a second signature; determining that the second signature is invalid; and responsive to determining that the second signature is invalid, selecting the traditional settlement process to process the second order rather than the fast track settlement process. Claim 24 -: 24, the method of claim 19, wherein the first level of the hierarchy of ledgers corresponds to more data blocks than the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers. Claim 25 -: 25, the method of claim 24, comprising: appending the first data block representing the secondary ledger based on determining that the first data block is relevant. (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 26 -: 26, comprising ; and storing instructions, which when executed cause to: receive a first order for equities to be executed by an exchange, wherein the settlement can occur on any one of T+O, T+1, or T+2 days after a trade date, wherein the participants access the settlement service over links, and wherein the first order is signed with a first signature of a first participant; generate a first data block based on the first order of equities; append a first data block representing a primary ledger at a first level of a hierarchy of ledgers, wherein the equities... the private and... the first data block... [id. at 19], determine that the first data block is relevant representing a secondary ledger at a second level of the hierarchy of ledgers, wherein the secondary ledger is made available to the DTC for the DTC to service custodian assets; append the first data block; verify that the first signature is valid; and complete a fast track settlement process to process the first order for equities, wherein the fast track settlement process processes the first order for equities faster than a traditional settlement process, wherein the fast track settlement process is decentralized, processed, and observed by a plurality of workers and supervisors each associated with the primary ledger for redundant verification, wherein the plurality of workers are dynamically spawned to handle a variable real-time load, and wherein the plurality of supervisors dynamically allocate jobs to the plurality of workers; and deliver the securities and cash simultaneously with the fast track settlement process for the first order for equities. (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 27 -: 27, claim 26, wherein the instructions cause to: upon determining... creating a timestamp... determining whether... upon determining... upon determining... [id. at 19], Claim 28 -: 28, claim 26, wherein the first... [id. at 20], Claim 29 -: 29, claim 26, wherein the instructions to determine that the first data block is relevant to cause to determine that at least one of a first clearing instruction or a first trade report references the secondary ledger at the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers. Claim 30 -: 30, claim 26, wherein the first... [id. at 22], Claim 31 -: 31, claim 26, wherein the instructions... [id. at 27], receive a second order for equities to be executed by the exchange, the second order being signed with a second signature; determine that the second signature is invalid; and responsive to determining that the second signature is invalid, select the traditional settlement process to process the second order rather than the fast track settlement process. Claim 32 -: 32, claim 26, wherein the first... [id. at 24], (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 33 -: 33, storing instructions, which when executed cause to: receive a first... append a first data... [id. at 26], wherein the equities... the private and... the first data block... [id. at 19], determine that the... [id. at 26], verify that the first signature is valid; complete a fast... wherein the plurality... [id. at 26], sending instructions that effectuate transfer of the securities and cash simultaneously with the fast track settlement process for the first order for equities. (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 34 -: 34, claim 33, wherein the instructions... [id. at 27], upon determining... creating a timestamp... determining whether... upon determining... upon determining... [id. at 19], Claim 35 -: 35, claim 33, wherein the first... [id. at 20], Claim 36 -: 36, claim 33, wherein the instructions... [id. at 29], Claim 37 -: 37, claim 33, wherein the first... [id. at 22], Claim 38 -: 38, claim 33, wherein the instructions... [id. at 27], receive a second... determine that the... responsive to determining... [id. at 31], (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). Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: 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).
While independent claims 19, 26, and 33 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 19 and is described by the steps of independent claim 26 and is described by the steps of independent claim 33.
Claim 19 (as amended): Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 19 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "encrypted digital links", "cryptographically-", "cryptographic ", "first blockchain", "second blockchain", "modules", "running on one of a plurality of nodes", "cryptographically", "generating a Merkel Root", "hash", and "without performing a proof of work computation". However, independent claim 19 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "encrypted digital links", "cryptographically-", "cryptographic ", "first blockchain", "second blockchain", "modules", "running on one of a plurality of nodes", "cryptographically", "generating a Merkel Root", "hash", and "without performing a proof of work computation" of independent claim 19 (as amended) 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 a private … a settlement service, comprising", "receiving a first order for … of a first participant", "generating a first data block … first order of equities", "appending the first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", "wherein the equities are moved … to the primary ledger", "the private and permissioned distributed … a DTC participant, and", "the first data block, the … primary ledger are immutable", "determining that the first data … to service custodian assets", "appending the first data block to the second blockchain", "completing a fast track settlement … ledger for redundant verification", "wherein the plurality of worker … plurality of worker modules", "cryptographically verifying the first order … the distributed ledger system", "sending instructions that effectuate transfer … order for equities; and", "upon determining that the first … double spending problem by", "creating a timestamp associated with … the first data block", "determining whether at least two transactions are simultaneous", "upon determining that the at … spending problem occurred; and" and "upon determining that the attempt … at least two transactions") 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 "receiving a first order for … of a first participant", "appending the first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", "appending the first data block to the second blockchain", "creating a timestamp associated with … the first data block" 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 noted 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. Furthermore, 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 "receiving a first order for … of a first participant", "appending the first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", "appending the first data block to the second blockchain", "creating a timestamp associated with … the first data block", (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), performing repetitive calculations, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (1978) (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp's claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), 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 storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 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 19 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 26 (as amended): Specifically pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 26 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "one or more computer processors", "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium", "computer instructions", "only encrypted digital communication", "cryptographically-", "cryptographic ", "first blockchain", "second blockchain", "cryptographically", "programs", "running on one of a plurality of nodes", and "modules". However, independent claim 26 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "one or more computer processors", "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium", "computer instructions", "only encrypted digital communication", "cryptographically-", "cryptographic ", "first blockchain", "second blockchain", "cryptographically", "programs", "running on one of a plurality of nodes", and "modules" of independent claim 26 (as amended) 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 comprising", "one or more computer processors; and", "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … cause the system to", "receive a first order for … of a first participant", "generate a first data block … first order of equities", "append a first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", "wherein the equities are moved … to the primary ledger", "the private and permissioned distributed … a DTC participant, and", "the first data block, the … primary ledger are immutable", "determine that the first data … to service custodian assets", "append the first data block to the second blockchain", "cryptographically verify that the first … signature is valid; and", "complete a fast track settlement … ledger for redundant verification", "wherein the plurality of worker … of worker programs; and" and "deliver the securities and cash … first order for equities") 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 "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … cause the system to", "receive a first order for … of a first participant", "append a first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", "append the first data block to the second 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 noted 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. Furthermore, 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 "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … cause the system to", "receive a first order for … of a first participant", "append a first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", "append the first data block to the second 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, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 19, electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 19, and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 19; 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., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 19. 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 26 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 33 (as amended): Materially pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 33 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium", "computer instructions", "one or more computer processors", "only encrypted digital communication", "cryptographically-", "cryptographic ", "first blockchain", "system", "second blockchain", "cryptographically", "modules", "running on one of a plurality of nodes", and "programs". However, independent claim 33 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium", "computer instructions", "one or more computer processors", "only encrypted digital communication", "cryptographically-", "cryptographic ", "first blockchain", "system", "second blockchain", "cryptographically", "modules", "running on one of a plurality of nodes", and "programs" of independent claim 33 (as amended) 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … more computer processors to", "receive a first order for … of a first participant", "append a first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", "wherein the equities are moved … to the primary ledger", "the private and permissioned distributed … a DTC participant, and", "the first data block, the … primary ledger are immutable", "determine that the first data … to service custodian assets", "cryptographically verify that the first cryptographic signature is valid", "complete a fast track settlement … ledger for redundant verification", "wherein the plurality of worker … of worker programs; and" and "sending instructions that effectuate transfer … first order for equities") 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 "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … more computer processors to", "receive a first order for … of a first participant", "append a first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers" 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 noted 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 26 also applies hereto. Moreover, 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 "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … more computer processors to", "receive a first order for … of a first participant", "append a first data block … a hierarchy of ledgers", (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 26 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 33 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 19, 26, and 33 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 20-25, 27-32, and 34-38 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.
Claims 27 and 34: Dependent claims 27 and 34 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "without performing a proof of work computation" of dependent claims 27 and 34 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 these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 27 and 34 are ineligible.
Claims 20, 28, and 35: Dependent claims 20, 28, and 35 add an additional method step of "wherein the first cryptographic signature is based on at least one of private or public cryptographic keys". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 20, 28, and 35 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, 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 step.) Dependent claims 20, 28, and 35 further do not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the first cryptographic signature is based on at least one of private or public cryptographic keys" (claim 20) 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 20, 28, and 35 are ineligible.
Claim 21: Dependent claim 21 adds an additional method step of "wherein determining that the first data block is relevant to the second blockchain comprises determining … report references the secondary ledger at the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 21 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 20, 28, and 35 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 20, 28, and 35 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 claim 21 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein determining that the first data block is relevant to the second blockchain comprises determining … report references the secondary ledger at the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers" 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 claim 21 is ineligible.
Claims 22, 30, and 37: Dependent claims 22, 30, and 37 add an additional method step of "wherein the first level of the hierarchy of ledgers includes fewer ledgers than the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 22, 30, and 37 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 20, 28, and 35 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 20, 28, and 35 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 22, 30, and 37 further do not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the first level of the hierarchy of ledgers includes fewer ledgers than the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers" (claim 22) 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 22, 30, and 37 are ineligible.
Claim 23: Dependent claim 23 adds an additional method step of "receiving a second order for equities to be executed by the exchange, the second order being cryptographically-signed with a second cryptographic signature", "determining that the second cryptographic signature is invalid; and", "responsive to determining that the second cryptographic signature is invalid, selecting the traditional settlement process to process the second order rather than the fast track settlement process". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 23 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 steps) 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 20, 28, and 35 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 20, 28, and 35 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 23 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "receiving a second order for equities to be executed by the exchange, the second order being cryptographically-signed with a second cryptographic signature", "determining that the second cryptographic signature is invalid; and", "responsive to determining that the second cryptographic signature is invalid, selecting the traditional settlement process to process the second order rather than the fast track settlement process" 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 claim 23 is ineligible.
Claims 24 and 32: Dependent claims 24 and 32 add an additional method step of "wherein the first level of the hierarchy of ledgers corresponds to more data blocks than the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 24 and 32 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 20, 28, and 35 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 20, 28, and 35 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 24 and 32 further do not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the first level of the hierarchy of ledgers corresponds to more data blocks than the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers" 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 24 and 32 are ineligible.
Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 adds an additional method step of "appending the first data block to the second blockchain representing the secondary ledger based on determining that the first data block is relevant to the second blockchain". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 25 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 20, 28, and 35 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 20, 28, and 35 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 claim 25 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "appending the first data block to the second blockchain representing the secondary ledger based on determining that the first data block is relevant to the second 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 claim 25 is ineligible.
Claim 27: Dependent claim 27 adds an additional method step of "wherein the computer instructions cause the system to", "upon determining that the first cryptographic signature is valid, preventing a double spending problem by", "creating a timestamp associated with the first data block without performing a proof of work … the timestamp indicating a priority of a transaction associated with the first data block", "determining whether at least two transactions are simultaneous", "upon determining that the at least two transactions are simultaneous, checking whether an attempt to create the double spending problem occurred; and", "upon determining that the attempt to create the double spending problem occurred, reversing at least one of the at least two transactions". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 27 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 steps) 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 Claim 19 above. 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 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. (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: performing repetitive calculations, Parker v. Flook, (1978); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, (Fed. Cir. 2012), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 19, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the "creating a timestamp associated with the first data block without performing a proof of work … the timestamp indicating a priority of a transaction associated with the first data block" 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 27 is ineligible.
Claims 29 and 36: Dependent claims 29 and 36 add an additional method step of "wherein the computer instructions to determine that the first data block is relevant to the … report references the secondary ledger at the second level of the hierarchy of ledgers". However, the additional method step of dependent claim