DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-31 are pending in this application. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated August 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, and 16 have been amended. Claims 3-7, 13, 15, and 17-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-31 have been newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-31, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-31 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: a method comprises: storing, by a buyer computing device of an exchange item marketplace network, a secure exchange item record related to an exchange item purchased by the buyer computing device, wherein the secure exchange item record includes an exchange item transactions blockchain including exchange item information, wherein the exchange item information includes exchange item security parameters and a quantifiable value; determining, by the buyer computing device, to redeem at least a portion of the quantifiable value of the exchange item; generating, by the buyer computing device, dynamic exchange item information based on the exchange item security parameters; determining, by the buyer computing device, a security code for the redeeming the exchange item based on dynamic exchange item information; sending, by the buyer computing device, a redemption request to a merchant server of the exchange item marketplace network to redeem the at least the portion of the quantifiable value in a transaction with the merchant server, wherein the redemption request includes the security code and at least some of the exchange item information, and wherein the merchant server sends the redemption request to a marketplace server of the exchange item marketplace network for verification; when the redemption request is verified, receiving, by the buyer computing device, a redemption code from the marketplace server; and providing, by the buyer computing device, the redemption code to the merchant server to complete the transaction.
The above limitations that set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to redeeming and utilizing an exchange item, i.e. a closed loop financial instrument (Specification p. 7 line 7). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a buyer computing device of an exchange item marketplace network, an exchange item transactions blockchain, a marketplace database, and a merchant server.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-22 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-22 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-22 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-22 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-22 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 23-31 are parallel to claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-22, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16, and 21-31 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has not submitted any arguments. The amended and newly added claims are not patent eligible for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached on 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights