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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant's Amendments filed on May 18, 2026 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 24-29, 32-33, 35-41 and 44-45 were amended. New Claim 46 was added. Claims 24-46 remain pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24-46 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 24-46 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 24 -: 24, an implemented method for checking whether a proposed transaction complies with one or more rules, the implemented method comprising acts of: receiving a commitment for at least one private date value associated with the proposed transaction, wherein; the commitment comprises a value in a setup; the value in the setup is generated based on the at least one private data value using a commitment scheme; and the at least one private data value is not revealed; checking an attribute attestation generated by a trusted entity responsible for verifying an attribute value corresponding to the attribute attestation, wherein: the attribute value corresponding to the attribute attestation comprises the commitment for the at least one private data value; the attribute attestation comprises a proof of the commitment for the at least one private data value; and the attribute attestation is checked at least in part by using a key associated with the trusted entity to check whether the attribute attestation for the commitment is signed by the trusted entity; using the commitment for the at least one private data value to perform a zero-knowledge proof for at least one statement about the at least one committed value, wherein: the at least one statement comprising a statement that the at least one private data value is in a set of values related to the one or more rules; and performing the zero-knowledge proof comprises applying at least one function in the setup to the commitment for the at least one private data value; determining, based on a result of checking the attribute attestation for the commitment and a result of performing the zero-knowledge proof, whether the at least one statement about the at least one private data value is satisfied, despite the at least one private data value not being revealed; and determining, based at least in part on whether the at least one statement about the at least one private data value is satisfied, whether the proposed transaction complies with the one or more rules. (mathematical relationships, 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 25 -: 25, the implemented method of claim 24, further comprising an act of: performing at least one action in accordance with the one or more rules, the at least one action comprising: rejecting or authorizing the proposed transaction; performing an identification verification on a user associated with the proposed transaction; submitting a report relating to the proposed transaction to an entity responsible for enforcing the one or more rules; and/or storing, information relating to the proposed transaction. Claim 26 -: 26, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the set of values related to the one or more rules comprises a range of values related to the one or more rules. Claim 27 -: 27, the implemented method of claim 26, wherein: the statement that the at least one private data value is in the range of values related to the one or more rules comprises a statement that the at least one private data value is above or below a selected threshold. Claim 28 -: 28, the implemented method of claim 26, wherein: the at least one private data value comprises a date of birth, an age, an account balance, a salary, a credit score, and/or an available credit. Claim 29 -: 29, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the commitment for the at least one private data value is generated based on the at least one private data value and a random value. Claim 30 -: 30, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the proposed transaction comprises opening an account, making a purchase, accessing data, and/or transferring one or more assets. Claim 31 -: 31, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the zero-knowledge proof comprises a non-interactive zero-knowledge proof. Claim 32 -: 32, the implemented method of claim 24, further comprising acts of: accessing the setup; and checking whether the setup is signed by an entity responsible for enforcing the one or more rules. Claim 33 -: 33, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the trusted entity signs the attribute attestation for the commitment for the at least one private data value in response to successfully verifying one or more attribute values of a user, the one or more attribute values being different from the commitment for the at least one private data value. Claim 34 -: 34, the implemented method of claim 33, wherein: the trusted entity verifies the one or more attribute values of the user at least in part by: examining one or more physical documents; taking one or more measurements from the user; and/or checking one or more referenced attestation issued by another trusted entity. Claim 35 -: 35, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein the set of values related to the one or more rules includes a set of whitelisted jurisdictions and/or a set of whitelisted hosting institutions. (mathematical relationships, 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 36 -: 36, comprising: at least one; and at least one readable storage having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, program the at least one to perform a method, the method comprising acts of: receiving a commitment for at least one private data value associated with a proposed transaction, wherein: the commitment comprises... the value in the setup... the at least one private... [id. at 24], checking an attribute attestation generated by a trusted entity structure, wherein: the attribute value... the attribute attestation... the attribute attestation... [id. at 24], using the commitment for the at least one private data value to perform a zero-knowledge proof for at least one statement about the at least one private data value, wherein: the at least one statement comprising a statement that the at least one private data value is in a set of values related to one or more rules; and performing the zero-knowledge... determining, based... [id. at 24], determining, based at least in part on whether the at least one statement about the at least one private data value is satisfied, whether a proposed transaction complies with one or more rules. (mathematical relationships, 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 37 -: 37, claim 36, wherein the method further comprises an act of: performing at least... rejecting or authorizing... performing an identification... submitting a report... storing, information... [id. at 25], Claim 38 -: 38, claim 36, wherein: the set of values related... [id. at 26], Claim 39 -: 39, claim 38, wherein: the statement that the at least one private data value is in the range of values related to the one ore more rules comprises a statement that the at least one private data value is above or below a selected threshold. Claim 40 -: 40, claim 38, wherein: the at least one private... [id. at 28], Claim 41 -: 41, claim 36, wherein: the commitment for... [id. at 29], Claim 42 -: 42, claim 36, wherein: the proposed transaction... [id. at 30], Claim 43 -: 43, claim 36, wherein: the zero-knowledge... [id. at 31], Claim 44 -: 44, claim 36, wherein the method further comprises acts of: accessing the setup;... checking whether the... [id. at 32], (mathematical relationships, 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 45 -: 45, at least one readable storage having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, program at least one to perform a method, the method comprising acts of: receiving a commitment... [id. at 36], the commitment comprises... the value in the setup... the at least one private... checking an attribute... the attribute value... the attribute attestation... the attribute attestation... [id. at 24], using the commitment... the at least one statement... [id. at 36], performing the zero-knowledge... determining, based... [id. at 24], determining, based... [id. at 36], (mathematical relationships, 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 46 -: 46. The implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the act of checking the attribute attestation comprises checking the proof of the commitment for the at least one private data value. (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: a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: systems and methods for compliance checks 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). Mathematical concepts – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as mathematical relationships, Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 24, 36, and 45 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 24 and is described by the steps of independent claim 36 and is described by the steps of independent claim 45.
Claim 24 (as amended): Specifically regarding 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 24 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-", "cryptographic commitment", "cryptographic setup", "data structure", "cryptographic proof", "public key", "electronically", "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", and "cryptographic function". However, independent claim 24 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-", "cryptographic commitment", "cryptographic setup", "data structure", "cryptographic proof", "public key", "electronically", "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", and "cryptographic function" of independent claim 24 (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 computer-implemented method for checking … method comprising acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for … the proposed transaction, wherein", "the cryptographic commitment comprises a … in a cryptographic setup", "the value in the cryptographic … cryptographic commitment scheme; and", "the at least one private … value is not revealed", "checking an attribute attestation data … attestation data structure, wherein", "the attribute value corresponding to … one private data value", "the attribute attestation data structure … private data value; and", "the attribute attestation data structure … by the trusted entity", "using the cryptographic commitment for … one committed value, wherein", "the at least one statement … or more rules; and", "performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof … one private data value", "determining, based on a result … not being revealed; and" and "determining, based at least in … one or more rules") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (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 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 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 amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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 24 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 36 (as amended): Materially regarding 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 36 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "processor", "computer-", "medium", "cryptographic commitment", "cryptographic setup", "data structure", "cryptographic proof", "public key", "electronically", "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", and "cryptographic function". However, independent claim 36 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "processor", "computer-", "medium", "cryptographic commitment", "cryptographic setup", "data structure", "cryptographic proof", "public key", "electronically", "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", and "cryptographic function" of independent claim 36 (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", "at least one processor; and", "at least one computer-readable storage … method comprising acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for … a proposed transaction, wherein", "the cryptographic commitment comprises a … in a cryptographic setup", "the value in the cryptographic … cryptographic commitment scheme; and", "the at least one private … value is not revealed", "checking an attribute attestation data … trusted entity structure, wherein", "the attribute value corresponding to … one private data value", "the attribute attestation data structure … private data value; and", "the attribute attestation data structure … by the trusted entity", "using the cryptographic commitment for … private data value, wherein", "the at least one statement … or more rules; and", "performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof … one private data value", "determining, based on a result … not being revealed; and" and "determining, based at least in … one or more rules") 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 "at least one computer-readable storage … method comprising acts of" 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. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "at least one computer-readable storage … method comprising acts of", (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: 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). 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 36 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 45 (as amended): Specifically regarding 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 45 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-", "medium", "processor", "cryptographic commitment", "cryptographic setup", "data structure", "cryptographic proof", "public key", "electronically", "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", and "cryptographic function". However, independent claim 45 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-", "medium", "processor", "cryptographic commitment", "cryptographic setup", "data structure", "cryptographic proof", "public key", "electronically", "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", and "cryptographic function" of independent claim 45 (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 At least one computer-readable … method comprising acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for … a proposed transaction, wherein", "the cryptographic commitment comprises a … in a cryptographic setup", "the value in the cryptographic … cryptographic commitment scheme; and", "the at least one private … value is not revealed", "checking an attribute attestation data … attestation data structure, wherein", "the attribute value corresponding to … one private data value", "the attribute attestation data structure … private data value; and", "the attribute attestation data structure … by the trusted entity", "using the cryptographic commitment for … private data value, wherein", "the at least one statement … or more rules; and", "performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof … one private data value", "determining, based on a result … not being revealed; and" and "determining, based at least in … one or more rules") 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 At least one computer-readable … method comprising acts of" 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 36 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 At least one computer-readable … method comprising acts of", (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 36 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 45 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 24, 36, and 45 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 25-35, 37-44, and 46 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 25 and 37: Dependent claims 25 and 37 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "storing, in a record" of dependent claims 25 and 37 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 25 and 37 are ineligible.
Claims 30 and 42: Dependent claims 30 and 42 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "digital" of dependent claims 30 and 42 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 30 and 42 are ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "biometric", and "data structures" of dependent claim 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 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.
Claims 25 and 37: Dependent claims 25 and 37 add an additional method step of "performing at least one action in accordance with the one or more rules, the at least one action comprising", "rejecting or authorizing the proposed transaction", "performing an identification verification on a user associated with the proposed transaction", "submitting a report relating to the proposed transaction to an entity responsible for enforcing the one or more rules; and/or", "storing, in a record, information relating to the proposed transaction". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 25 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 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 36 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 36 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 36 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the "storing, in a record, information relating to the proposed transaction" 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 claims 25 and 37 are ineligible.
Claims 26 and 38: Dependent claims 26 and 38 add an additional method step of "the set of values related to the one or more rules comprises a range of values related to the one or more rules". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 26 and 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 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 Claim 24 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 24 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 26 and 38 are ineligible.
Claims 27 and 39: Dependent claims 27 and 39 add an additional method step of "the statement that the at least one private data value is in the range of values related … that the at least one private data value is above or below a selected threshold". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 27 and 39 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 Claim 24 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 24 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 27 and 39 are ineligible.
Claims 28 and 40: Dependent claims 28 and 40 add an additional method step of "the at least one private data value comprises a date of birth, an age, an account balance, a salary, a credit score, and/or an available credit". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 28 and 40 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 24 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 24 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 claims 28 and 40 are ineligible.
Claims 29 and 41: Dependent claims 29 and 41 add additional method steps of "the cryptographic commitment for the at least one private data value is generated based on the at least one private data value and a random value". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 29 and 41 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 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 24 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 claims 29 and 41 are ineligible.
Claims 30 and 42: Dependent claims 30 and 42 add an additional method step of "the proposed transaction comprises opening an account, making a purchase, accessing data, and/or transferring one or more digital assets". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 30 and 42 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 24 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 24 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 claims 30 and 42 are ineligible.
Claims 31 and 43: Dependent claims 31 and 43 add an additional method step of "the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof comprises a non-interactive cryptographic zero-knowledge proof". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 31 and 43 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 Claim 24 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 24 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 31 and 43 are ineligible.
Claims 32 and 44: Dependent claims 32 and 44 add an additional method step of "accessing the cryptographic setup; and", "checking whether the cryptographic setup is electronically signed by an entity responsible for enforcing the one or more rules". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 32 and 44 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 24 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 24 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 claims 32 and 44 are ineligible.
Claim 33: Dependent claim 33 adds an additional method step of "the trusted entity signs the attribute attestation data structure for the cryptographic commitment for the at least … values being different from the cryptographic commitment for the at least one private data value". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 33 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 Claim 24 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 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 33 is ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 adds an additional method step of "the trusted entity verifies the one or more attribute values of the user at least in part by", "examining one or more physical documents", "taking one or more biometric measurements from the user; and/or", "checking one or more referenced attestation data structures issued by another trusted entity". 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 24 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 24 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 34 is ineligible.
Claim 35: Dependent claim 35 adds an additional method step of "wherein the set of values related to the one or more rules includes a set of whitelisted jurisdictions and/or a set of whitelisted hosting institutions". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 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, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 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 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 35 is ineligible.
Claim 46: Dependent claim 46 adds an additional method step of "the act of checking the attribute attestation data structure comprises checking the cryptographic proof of the cryptographic commitment for the at least one private data value". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 46 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 Claim 24 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 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 46 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 May 18, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed January 16, 2026 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which were necessitated by Applicant's Amendment. Further to the January 16, 2026 Non-Final Correspondence, the new 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:
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. º 101 at least because [] (ii) the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One, and (iii) the claims integrate any purported judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. []
"The Office Action interprets certain claim terms in a manner that is inconsistent with how a person skilled in the art would understand the terms.
"[T]he Office Action [] divides multi-word claim terms into individual word components in a manner [].
'[] A person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret "public key" and "electronically signed" in this manner.
'[T]he terms "public key" and "electronically signed" have technical meanings to a person skilled in the field of computer security. For example, the Computer Security Resource Center at the Information Technology Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereafter CSRC_NIST) explains that public key cryptography "uses two separate keys to exchange data ù one to encrypt or digitally sign the data and one to decrypt the data or verify the digital signature". (https://csre.nist.gov/glossary/term/public_key_cryptography (CSRC_NIST - public key cryptography), p. 1). For instance, "[u]sers can digitally sign data with their private key and the resulting signature can be verified by anyone using the corresponding public key. (CSRC_NIST - public key cryptography, p. 2).
'[A] person skilled in the art would take the words "public key" together to mean a public key in public key cryptography. A person skilled in the art would not have split the term "public key" into "public" and "key" in the manner [].
'[A] person skilled in the art would take the words "electronically signed" together to mean electronically signed using public key cryptography. A person skilled in the art would not have split the term "electronically signed" into "electronically" and "signed" in the manner [].
"[S]plitting a multi-word claim term into its individual word components and then characterizing the individual words separately, [] improperly changes the meaning of the claim term as a person of ordinary skill would understand it."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 12-14).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. 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 consideration when determining that the claim(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recite(s) significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is that the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent [] to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n. 14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Here, the abstract "key" is generally linked to its "public" availability, and the abstract "signed" is generally linked to having been performed "electronically". In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, neither of these abstract terms claimed as being performed with "cryptography". See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with [a] deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[t]" an abstract idea "on . . . a computer," Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 337), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.' Here, the steps of independent Claim 24 are "implemented" by a "computer"; and the steps of independent Claim 36 are to be performed by "at least one processor". The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"[] The claims do not recite any judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One
"[A] purported abstract idea [] is nearly the entirety of the claim. [T]he claim is neither a method of organizing human activity, nor a mental process, nor a mathematical concept.
"In supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. º 101, [t]he Office Action fails [].
"[C]laim 24 [] falls into any one subgroup, [] each of all three.
"[T]he rejection of claim 24 is improper []."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 14-15).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Materially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping include concepts relating to: fundamental economic principles or practices (including, e.g., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including, e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including, e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Regarding the mental processes abstract idea grouping, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper."); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant argued:
'[T]hat a "commitment", as recited in claim 24, is a type of commercial or legal interaction, Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'The terms "commitment" and "commitment scheme" have technical meanings to a person skilled in the field of computer security. For example, Daniele Miccianio, CSE 206A: Lattice Algorithms and Applications-Commitment Schemes, Lecture Notes at University of California San Diego (Fall 2019) (hereafter Miccianio) describes a commitment scheme as "a cryptographic protocol that allows a Sender to commit a chosen value (or statement) while keeping it hidden to the Receiver[.]" (Miccianio, Section 1.1).
'[A] person skilled in the art would understand the "commitment" in claim 24 to be an element of a cryptographic protocol, such as the example given in Sec. 3 of Miccianio. A commercial or legal commitment would make no sense whatsoever to a person skilled in the art reading claim 24.
'[T]hat a "zero-knowledge proof", as recited in claim 24, is a type of commercial or legal interaction, Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'The term "zero-knowledge proof" has a technical meaning to a person skilled in the field of computer security. [] CSRC_NIST describes "zero-knowledge proof" as a "cryptographic scheme where a prover is able to convince a verifier that a statement is true, without providing any more information than that single bit (that is, that the statement is true rather than false)". (https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/zero_knowledge_proof (CSRC_NIST zero-knowledge proof), p. 1).
'[A] person skilled in the art would understand the "zero-knowledge proof" in claim 24 to be a cryptographic scheme. []
'[T]hat an "attestation", as recited in claim 24, is at type of commercial or legal interaction, Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'[A] person skilled in the art would understand the "attestation" in claim 24 to be a data structure. []
"Claim 24 does not recite a mental process
"[C]laim 24 recites the use of multiple cryptographic techniques, including commitment, attestation, and zero-knowledge proof. These cryptographic techniques are combined in a novel and non-trivial way. It is not practical to perform such a combination in the human mind.
"Claim 24 does not recite a mathematical concept
"To the extent the cryptographic techniques (e.g., commitment, attestation, and zero-knowledge proof) recited in claim 24 are based on or involve mathematics, claim 24 is not directed to any mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation.
"[A]mended claim 24 does not recite a Judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One. Claims 36 and 45, while different in scope, recite features similar to those of claim 24 and are[] directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong One for similar reasons as claim 24."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 15-18).
However, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. The mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a "series of mathematical calculations based on selected information" are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a "process of organizing information through mathematical correlations" are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of "managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results" as an abstract idea). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: a relationship between reaction rate and temperature, which relationship can be expressed in the form of a formula called the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981); a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674; a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words); and organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Here, amended independent Claims 24, 36, and 45 (e.g. "applying at least one cryptographic function in the cryptographic setup to the cryptographic commitment for the at least one private data value)" recite mathematical relationships. Here, amended dependent Claims 26-27 and 38-39, (e.g. "range of values") recite mathematical relationships; amended dependent Claims 27 and 39 (e.g. "value is above or below a selected threshold") recite mathematical relationships; while amended dependent Claims 29 and 41 (e.g. "a random value") recite mathematical relationships. The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"[] The claims integrate any purported judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two
'[T]hat the claims do not integrate the alleged abstract into a practical application because: (i) the additional elements of claim 24 beyond the alleged abstract idea are "generic computer and/or field of use components" and (ii) "nothing in independent claims 24, 36, and 45 improves another technology or technical field[,]" [] Applicant respectfully disagrees.
"The Office Action's analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is fatally flawed because of incorrect claim interpretation
"[T]o formulate an abstract idea by [] characterizing the individual words [], a person skilled in the art would not interpret the claims in this manner.
'[A] person skilled in art would not split "public key" into "public" and "key". [A] person skilled in art would take the words "public key" together to refer to a technical element in the field of computer security, and likewise for "electronically signed", "cryptographic commitment", "attestation data structure", and "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof". (See CSRC_NIST - public key cryptography, p. 1; Miccianio, Section 1.1; CSRC_NIST zero-knowledge proof, p. 1; Specification, [0047, 0057, 0125, 0129]). These technical elements are combined in claim 24 in a novel and non-obvious way. [T]hese technical elements are not merely generic components [].
"Claim 24 recites an improvement to the technical field of computer security
"Trust and privacy are both technical concepts in the field of computer security. (https://csre. nist. gov/glossary/trust (CSRC_NIST - trust); https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/privacy (CSRC_NIST - privacy)). But they often represent competing goals. [A] prover may commit to a value cryptographically, and may use a zero-knowledge set-membership (ZKSM) scheme to demonstrate to a verifier that the committed value belongs to a certain set of values, without revealing the committed value itself. (Specification, [0238]). This may protect the prover's privacy, but trust may be lacking because the verifier may be unable to ascertain whether the committed value is correct. (Specification, [0239]).
"The present disclosure illustrates this tension between trust and privacy in the context of a practical application of computer security, namely, regulatory compliance. [T]o combat financial crimes such as money-laundering and terrorist financing, government entities such the U.S. Department of Treasury and the European Banking Authority of the European Union (EU) promulgate regulations to require banks and money service businesses (MSBs) to submit reports, keep records, and verify identities of customers. (Specification, [0174-0175, 0230]). Such regulations may include whitelists or blacklists of institutions or jurisdictions. (Specification, [0221, 0223]).
"To preserve privacy, an asset owner/recipient may commit to a jurisdiction cryptographically, and may use a ZKSM scheme to demonstrate to a custodian that the committed jurisdiction belongs to a certain set of allowed jurisdictions (e.g., countries in the EU), without revealing the committed jurisdiction itself, (Specification, [0237, 0239]). [T]he inventors have recognized and appreciated that such a scheme alone may be insufficient to establish compliance. (Specification, [0239]). [T]he asset owner/recipient may attempt to evade a transfer restriction by committing to an allowed jurisdiction in which the asset owner/recipient does not in fact reside. (Id.). Such a deception may only be exposed by revealing the committed jurisdiction and checking whether the asset owner/recipient in fact resides in the committed jurisdiction. (Id.). [T]he custodian may be unable to establish compliance without compromising privacy of the asset owner/recipient. (id).
'While the example is in the context of regulatory compliance, the problem is a technical one in the field of computer security: how to provide trust without compromising privacy. The solution recited in claim 24 is also a technical one, [] a novel and non-obvious combinations of elements such as "cryptographic commitment", "attestation data structure", and "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", all of which are technical elements in the field of computer security. (See CSRC_NIST - public key cryptography, p. 1; Miccianio, Section 1.1; CSRC_NIST - zero-knowledge proof, p. 1; Specification, [0047, 0057, 0125, 0129)).
'[T]he claims as amended recite a combination of elements including [amended claim language]. These claimed features combine the technical elements of "cryptographic commitment", "attribute attestation data structure" and "cryptographic zeroknowledge proof" in a novel and non-obvious way to provide an improved system in computer security that delivers both trust and privacy.
"[C]laim 24 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong Two. Claims 36 and 45, while different in scope, recite features similar to those of claim 24 and are[] directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong Two[].
'[T]he Abstract mentions features that are not recited anywhere in claim 24, such as "a status of a distributed ledger address of the counterparty". There is no reasonable way to interpret claim 24 to be directed to the Abstract.
"Each of the rejected dependent claims depends from one of the independent claims []. They are [] patentable for at least the same reasons[], in addition to reasons related to their own recitations. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 18-21).
However, the above-quoted arguments submitted May 18, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 18-21 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Additionally, the Office respectfully submits that above-quoted arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which were necessitated by Applicant's amendment submitted May 18, 2026. Materially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. 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 consideration when determining that the claim(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recite(s) significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is that the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent [] to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n. 14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Here, the abstract "key" is generally linked to its "public" availability, and the abstract "signed" is generally linked to having been performed "electronically". In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, neither of these abstract terms claimed as being performed with "cryptography" . Similarly, here regarding "cryptographic commitment", "attestation data structure", and "cryptographic zero-knowledge proof", the abstract "commitment" and "zero-knowledge proof" are generally linked to being "cryptographic", and the abstract "attestation" is generally linked to being in a "data structure".
Regarding the mental processes abstract idea grouping, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper."); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014); a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer's shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). For instance, if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1). An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient's personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2). An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower's credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents - Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356; A computer-implemented system for enabling anonymous loan shopping - Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695; A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud - CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1; A post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network - Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359; A self-verifying voting system - Voter Verified, 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1504; A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid - Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and Computer readable storage media comprising computer instructions to implement a method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization - Versata, 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 115 USPQ2d at 1685. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
"Certain methods of organizing human activity" encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include: hedging or protecting against risk, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010); managing a stable value protected life insurance policy, [and then instruct the use of well-known calculations to help establish some of the inputs into the equation]; e.g., managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day, Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012); mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014); rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); financial instruments that are designed to protect against the risk of investing in financial instruments, In re Chorna, 656 Fed. App'x 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362GÇô63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017); using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts include: a transaction performance guaranty, e.g. a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); managing a stable value protected life insurance policy via performing calculations, Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy (i.e., an agreement in the form of a contract), Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1338-39, 108 USPQ2d 1173, 1175-76 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is a legal obligation include: real estate investment tool designed to enable tax-free exchanges, e.g. aggregating real property into a real estate portfolio, dividing the interests in the portfolio into a number of deedshares, and subjecting those shares to a master agreement, Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 101 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed Cir. 2012); hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010); mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1979 (2014); and arbitration, In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 981, 89 USPQ2d 1655, 1665 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors include: using advertising as an exchange or currency, e.g. displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014); structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009); using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979); and offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations includes: processing an application for financing a loan, e.g. maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer's inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017); processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). "Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include: tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting), e.g. storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015); filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis); considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). Example of a claim reciting social activities include: voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation, e.g. presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable, Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018); providing information to a person without interfering with the person's primary activity, e.g. providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information, (passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation), or an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Examples of following rules or instructions recited in a claim include: rules for playing games, e.g. a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up, In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018); assigning hair designs to balance head shape, In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and a series of instructions of how to hedge risk, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with [a] deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[t]" an abstract idea "on . . . a computer," Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 337), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.' Here, the steps of independent Claim 24 are "implemented" by a "computer"; and the steps of independent Claim 36 are to be performed by "at least one processor".
'[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to 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). Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses. 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. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; 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); 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); 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). In consideration when determining that the claim(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recite(s) significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is that the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent [] to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n. 14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20160330034 A1 by BACK; Adam et al. discloses TRANSFERRING LEDGER ASSETS BETWEEN BLOCKCHAINS VIA PEGGED SIDECHAINS.
USPGPub No. US 20160358165 A1 by MAXWELL; Gregory discloses CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY CONCEALING AMOUNTS TRANSACTED ON A LEDGER WHILE PRESERVING A NETWORK'S ABILITY TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION.
USPGPub No. US 20180068280 A1 by Micali; Silvio et al. discloses VERIFYING ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20170011460 A1 by Molinari; Vincent et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRADING, CLEARING AND SETTLING SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS USING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY.
USPGPub No. US 20170222814 A1 by Oberhauser; Alex et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING DIGITAL IDENTITIES.
USPGPub No. US 20150310426 A1 by Samid; Gideon discloses Bit Currency: Transactional Trust Tools.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM and Friday from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 07/20/2026
Prosecution Insights