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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 and 36 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.) 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 29 and 36 are ineligible.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 adds an additional method step of "wherein the computer instructions cause the system to", "receive a second order for equities to be executed by the exchange, the second order being cryptographically-signed with a second cryptographic signature", "determine that the second cryptographic signature is invalid; and", "responsive to determining that the second cryptographic signature is invalid, select the traditional settlement process to process the second order rather than the fast track settlement process". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 31 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.) 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 31 is ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 adds an additional method step of "wherein the computer instructions cause the one or more computer processors 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 34 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 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 27 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.) See discussion above regarding Claim 27 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, 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 34 is ineligible.
Claim 38: Dependent claim 38 adds an additional method step of "wherein the computer instructions cause the one or more computer processors to", "receive a second order for equities to be executed by the exchange, the second order being cryptographically-signed with a second cryptographic signature", "determine that the second cryptographic signature is invalid; and", "responsive to determining that the second cryptographic signature is invalid, select the traditional settlement process to process the second order rather than the fast track settlement process". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 38 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.) 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 38 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 September 26, 2025 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed July 22, 2025 (hereinafter "Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the July 22, 2025 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:
'[T]hat the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, [and] concepts performed in the human mind."[,] Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'Independent claim 19 pertains to a computer-implemented process for verifying cryptographic signatures to validate electronic transactions and appending electronic ledgers containing information related to the electronic transactions to append-only blockchains. By generating these blockchains, not only can the validity of the electronic transactions be verified via one or more cryptographic signatures, the transactions can also be securely recorded. User devices access the system using "encrypted digital links.""A first data block" is generated based on a first order of equities and appended "to an end of a first blockchain representing a primary ledger at a first level of a hierarchy of ledgers" and the relevant electronic data is transferred "to the primary ledger." The processor can also "determin[e] that the first data block is relevant to a second blockchain" and "append[] the first data block to the second blockchain.""[T]he process is decentralized and observed by a plurality of worker modules and supervisor modules each running on one of a plurality of nodes associated with the primary ledger for redundant verification." In particular, the worker modules dynamically handle large loads and create the data blocks being appended to the blockchains, enabling the use of blockchain technology during periods of high load. See Specification at paragraph [0062]. The recited supervisor modules coordinate workloads such that each electronic transaction is processed only once and that any failed transactions are reattempted, providing fault tolerance to the blockchain network. See Specification at paragraph [0063].
'[T]he plurality of worker modules are dynamically spawned to handle a variable real-time load and the plurality of supervisor modules dynamically allocate jobs to worker modules. The processor cryptographically verifies the first order of equities by "generating a Merkel Root from a first cryptographic hash of the first blockchain and a second cryptographic hash of the second blockchain to provide immutability across the distributed ledger system." The processor further prevents "a double spending problem by creating a timestamp associated with the first data block without performing a proof of work computation . .. determining whether at least two transactions are simultaneous ... checking whether an attempt to create the double spending problem occurred; and ... reversing at least one of the at least two transactions."
"These elements do not describe laws of nature or natural phenomena, nor do they recite any of the abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the Revised Guidance. [T]hese elements are not representative of a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process performed in the human mind. [T]he overarching concept is inextricably tied to computer technology and is a far cry from the type of ideas that have been found to be abstract[].
'[] Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not "directed to" a judicial exception (Step 2A - Prong 1: NO), and thus qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
"One such consideration is whether a claim applies a judicial exception to improve a technical field.16 Even if the claims were determined to be directed to the alleged judicial exception, the claimed elements improve how an underlying blockchain of an electronic exchange operates. Independent claim 19[] recites a specific combination of steps for appending a blockchain with data blocks derived from electronic transactions and generating hashes and a Merkel Root for the secure verification of electronic transactions. The amended claims thus recite a process for improving blockchain technology for the verification of electronic transactions. [I]ndependent claim 19 recites dynamically spawning a plurality of worker modules based on the variable real- time load of the system. The worker modules dynamically handle large loads and create the data blocks being appended to the blockchains, enabling the use of blockchain technology during periods of high load. See Specification at paragraph [0062]. The recited supervisor modules coordinate workloads such that each electronic transaction is processed only once and that any failed transactions are reattempted, providing fault tolerance to the blockchain network. See Specification at paragraph [0063].
"[T]he claimed elements ensure the alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application by transforming electronic transactions in a meaningful way. Independent claim 19[] recites a combination of steps for verifying cryptographic signatures in the electronic transactions, generating data blocks related to the electronic transactions, and appending the data blocks to append-only blockchains to expedite the computational process. Thus, independent claim 19 concerns a practical application of digital signal manipulation in which different types of data (namely, electronic transactions, cryptographic signatures, data blocks, ledgers) are electrically transformed into a different state (namely, blocks of blockchains, Merkel Roots), and such circumstances should be regarded as a useful clue that these claims are eligible.
"[T]he claimed elements allow the electronic transaction process to be expedited. [T]he fast track process described in independent claim 19 can obviate the use of traditional electronic transaction processes.
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: YES), and thus qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
"[] Applicant submits that the features of the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception for several reasons.
"[T]he claims are analogous to those found to be eligible in Amdocs in several respects. In Amdocs, the court held that the [] claim was patent eligible under 35 USC 101[.]
'The court held that the [] claim "entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases)."19 Courts have generally found claims to be patent eligible when they are directed to an improvement in computer functionality under Step 2A or recite a sufficient inventive concept under Step 2B, particularly when the claims solve a technology-based problem. [T]he present invention represents a technological solution to a technological problem. The problem is the inability for large quantities of electronic transactions to occur simultaneously on a blockchain network. [T]he problem is the difficulty in processing a large quantity of electronic transactions, as it requires a significant amount of processing power, and in generating appropriate data blocks for transactions occurring simultaneously while maintaining the continuity of the blockchain. The claims address these challenges through a plurality of worker modules and supervisor modules. [T]he claims address these challenges because
"the fast track settlement process is decentralized, processed, and observed by a plurality of worker modules and supervisor modules each running on one of a plurality of nodes associated with the primary ledger for redundant verification, wherein the plurality of worker modules are dynamically spawned to handle a variable real-time load, and wherein the plurality of supervisor modules dynamically allocate jobs to the plurality of worker modules.
"Such an approach can serve to improve effectiveness in processing a large quantity of simultaneous orders.
"Another technological problem is that blockchains can be susceptible to double- spending problems. Double-spending occurs when one user device attempts two electronic transactions simultaneously. The claims address these challenges by generating timestamps associated with the data blocks generated by the electronic transactions. [T]he claims address these challenges [.]
'Such an approach can prevent double-spending issues. [J]ust as in Amdocs, the claims concern a technological solution to a technological problem that amounts to significantly more than "fundamental economic principles or practices" or "concepts performed in the human mind."
"[amended claim language].
"Taken together, these elements ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
'[T]he present invention combines the advantageous elements of the standard settlement process (e.g., the dispute process) and the blockchain processing systems (e.g., speed, security). [T]he amended claims explicitly recite this improvement. [C]laim 19 recites, "wherein the fast track settlement process processes the first order for equities faster than a traditional settlement process," and "cryptographically verifying the first order of equities ... to provide immutability across the distributed ledger system." [C]laim 19 "sets forth an improvement in technology."23
"[T]he claims more likely than not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (Step 2B: YES),24 and the claims qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. The foregoing analysis applies to all of the independent and dependent claims. []
"[A] specific discussion of the dependent claims is unnecessary. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 12-21).
Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments submitted September 26, 2025 at REMARKS pp. 12-21 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. 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 Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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); viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
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); v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59; vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Regarding the Amdocs (Israel) v. Openet Telecom court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office finds that the legal holdings of Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 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 specific facts and the specific holdings of Amdocs (Israel) v. Openet Telecom in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in Amdocs, claims were found to be eligible in Step 2B for methods, systems, and computer-readable media regarding distributed network-based filtering and aggregating platform, reporting on collection of usage information in distributed network, and field enhancement in distributed network. However, the specific facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are substantially dissimilar to the material facts in Amdocs (Israel) v. Openet Telecom with respect to Amdocs's holdings. In Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., the court relied on a claim construction in which the claim required application of a number of field enhancements in a distributed fashion to determine that the claim entails an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem. 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims were eligible in Step 2B because the claimed improvement of a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records amounted to an inventive concept. Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In contrast, the Applicant's alleged invention involves settlement of securities trades using append only ledgers, and the claims currently pending the Applicant's matter do not entail an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem amounting to an inventive concept 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 substantive relevant facts in the Applicant's pending matter are materially dissimilar to the facts in Amdocs (Israel) v. Openet Telecom. Thus, the Office finds that the legal holdings of Amdocs (Israel) v. Openet Telecom can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. Concerning the Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office determines that the legal holdings of Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1236 (Fed Cir. 2016), 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 specific facts and the particular holdings of Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in Bascom, claims were found to be eligible in Step 2B for methods and systems regarding filtering internet content. However, the specific facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are markedly contradistinctive from the relevant facts in Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility regarding Bascom's holdings. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of ineligibility by the district court at Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice framework when analyzing a claimed system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network. The BASCOM court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. In contrast, the Applicant's alleged invention involves settlement of securities trades using append only ledgers, and the claims presented in the Applicant's currently pending application do not include any inventive concept that may be found in any non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of any additional elements 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 substantive relevant facts in the Applicant's pending matter are materially dissimilar to the facts in Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility. Thus, the Office determines that the legal holdings of Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B.
'[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.
In response to applicant's arguments, a recitation of the intended use or purpose of a process (e.g., "immutability") of the claimed invention must result in a structural and/or procedural limitation of the claimed invention in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Since an abstract process is capable of performing the intended use and/or accomplishing the purpose of the process, then the abstract process meets the claim.
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). The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to 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 20150220928 A1 by Allen; Robert discloses PLATFORM FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIGITAL CURRENCY.
USPGPub No. US 20160283941 A1 by Andrade; Marcus discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION.
USPGPub No. US 20160260169 A1 by Arnold; Matthew Timothy et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UPDATING A DISTRIBUTED LEDGER BASED ON PARTIAL VALIDATIONS OF TRANSACTIONS.
USPAT No. US 11410233 B2 to Creighton, IV; John Everett et al. discloses Blockchain technology to settle transactions.
USPAT No. US 10515409 B2 to Creighton, IV; John Everett et al. discloses Distributing work load of high-volume per second transactions recorded to append-only ledgers.
USPGPub No. US 20160300223 A1 by Grey; Victor et al. discloses PROTECTED DATA TRANSFER ACROSS DISPARATE NETWORKS.
USPGPub No. US 20150262176 A1 by Langschaedel; Julian et al. discloses HOT WALLET FOR HOLDING BITCOIN.
USPGPub No. US 20160042468 A1 by Shaaban; Ahmed Farouk et al. discloses Modified cash ledger basis for an accounting system and process.
USPGPub No. US 20150081566 A1 by Slepinin; Igor V. discloses DIRECT DIGITAL CASH SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20150074415 A1 by Tanner; Colin et al. discloses Image Verification By An Electronic Device.
USPGPub No. US 20150120567 A1 by VAN ROOYEN; Gert-Jan et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING THIRD PARTY ACCESS TO A RESTRICTED ITEM.
USPGPub No. US 20150332395 A1 by Walker; Paul et al. discloses Cryptographic Currency For Securities Settlement.
USPAT No. US 10068228 B1 to Winklevoss; Cameron Howard et al. discloses Systems and methods for storing digital math-based assets using a secure portal.
USPGPub No. US 20150287026 A1 by Yang; Danny et al. discloses DATA ANALYTIC AND SECURITY MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTING A HOT WALLET SERVICE.
USPGPub No. US 20150026072 A1 by Zhou; Andrew H B et al. discloses GLOBAL WORLD UNIVERSAL DIGITAL MOBILE AND WEARABLE CURRENCY IMAGE TOKEN AND LEDGER.
USPGPub No. US 20150142670 A1 by Zloth; Sue et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOFTWARE BASED ENCRYPTION.
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 through Tuesday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 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 11/22/2025
Prosecution Insights