DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Claims
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-22 and 24 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 03/10/2026 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
5. The following is a quotation of35 U.S.C. § 112 (b):
(b) CONCLUSION. -The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. New Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. New Dependent claim 24 (Line 1) recites “compute a challenge of the availability verifier value…” This recitation is indefinite since it fails to define the metes and bounds of the limitations. Examiner suggests to have new dependent claim 24 (Line 1) recites “24. (New) The device of claim 1, wherein, compute a challenge of the availability verifier value.…” Appropriate correction and clarification are requested. Examiner is examining the new dependent claim 24 as “24. (New) The device of claim 1, wherein compute a challenge of the availability verifier value.…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-22 and 24 are directed to a device (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… obtain a petition for reversal of a transaction, where the transaction is incorporated … a transfer of assets; obtain one or more votes from one or more trusted entities …; when the obtained one or more votes is tallied in favor of reversing: generate a ledger entry representing reversal of the transaction, where the ledger entry comprises a redaction indicator, an availability verifier value, and a payload indicative of the transaction; wherein the redaction indicator is a hash preimage of the availability verifier value; compute a challenge for calculation of ledger closing by computing a cryptographic hash of all applicable ledger entries; and broadcast … to obtain a proof based on the availability verifier value that verifies the redaction indicator.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities of reversing a transaction recorded on a distributed ledger maintained by a cryptographic system). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a device”, “a distributed ledger”, “a cryptographic system”, “a network interface”, “memory”, “a processor”, “a first block into an immutable distributed ledger”, “an electronic communication”, “a cryptographic operation using a cryptographic system”, and “a second block incorporating the ledger entry to securely add the second block to the immutable distributed ledger”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a device”, “a distributed ledger”, “a cryptographic system”, “a network interface”, “memory”, “a processor”, “a first block into an immutable distributed ledger”, “an electronic communication”, “a cryptographic operation using a cryptographic system”, and “a second block incorporating the ledger entry to securely add the second block to the immutable distributed ledger” evaluated individually and in combination 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, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-22 and 24 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 2: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein: the processor is further configured to receive the block; and the proof is obtained based on the block amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the processor).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 3: simply provides further definition to “the proof” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the proof is generated based on an iterative process does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 4: simply provides further definition to “the petition” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the petition comprises a transaction Id, a sending address and a receiving address does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5 and 7: simply provide further definition to “the one or more trusted entities” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the one or more trusted entities are registered on a ledger; wherein the one or more trusted entities are one or more trusted stakers amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a ledger).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 6: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processor is further configured to register a list of trusted entities amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the processor).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 8: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processor is further configured to notify the one or more trusted entities amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the processor).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 9 and 11: simply provide further definition to “notifying the one or more trusted entities” recited in dependent claim 8. Simply stating that wherein notifying the one or more trusted entities comprises using a blockchain monitoring component; wherein notifying the one or more trusted entities comprises sending a message to the one or more trusted entities amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a blockchain).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 10: simply provides further definition to “the blockchain monitoring component” recited in dependent claim 9. Simply stating that wherein the blockchain monitoring component regularly queries a smart contract for any votes in progress amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the blockchain).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 12 and 13: simply provide further definition to “the one or more votes” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the one or more votes are recorded on the distributed ledger; wherein the one or more votes are received from one or more trusted entities amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the distributed ledger).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 14: simply provides further definition to “the transaction” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the transaction is reversed based on a tally of the one or more votes amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the blockchain).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 15 and 16: simply provide further definition to “a tally of the one or more votes” recited in dependent claim 14. Simply stating that wherein a tally of the one or more votes is determined after all trusted entities have voted; wherein a tally of the one or more votes is determined after a specified period of time has passed do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 17, 18, and 19: simply provide further definition to “reversing the transaction” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein reversing the transaction comprises rewriting a record of ownership of one or more tokens in the distributed ledger; wherein reversing the transaction comprises rewriting a record of ownership of one or more tokens in the distributed ledger to match an original record of ownership; wherein reversing the transaction comprises submitting an inverse transaction, the inverse transaction configured to undo changes associated with the transaction amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a record of ownership of one or more tokens in the distributed ledger).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 20: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processor is further configured to generate a reward transaction, the reward transaction transferring tokens to an entity that submitted the petition amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the processor).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 21: simply provides further definition to “generating the redaction indicator” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that generating the redaction indicator using a number generator that is at least pseudo-random does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 22: simply provides further definition to “compute a challenge” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein compute a challenge further comprises compute the availability verifier value by applying a one-way hash function to the redaction indicator does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 24: simply provides further definition to “compute a challenge of the availability verifier value” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that compute a challenge of the availability verifier value by a cryptographic operation using a cryptographic system, wherein compute a challenge further comprises compute the availability verifier value based on a Merkle tree associated with the ledger entry, where the Merkle tree comprises a plurality of leaf values and a plurality of internal nodes, by iteratively applying a one- way hash function over the plurality of leaf values and plurality of internal nodes amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a cryptographic operation using a cryptographic system).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
11. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-22 and 24 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: Step 2A Prong1: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Office action alleges that claim 1 recites an abstract idea falling within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection has oversimplified the claims by characterizing them at too high a level of generality. As the USPTO's December 5, 2025 Memorandum on Ex Parte Desjardins instructs, "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality" that potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation. Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential). Claim 1, as amended, recites specific technical operations that cannot be performed mentally or by human activity, including computing availability verifier values by applying a one-way hash function to the redaction indicator and cryptographic validation of redaction indicators. Similarly, the limitations of claims 21, 22, and 24 recite technical operations as discussed in previous responses. These operations are inherently computational and require processor execution of cryptographic algorithms (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that amended independent claim 1 as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities of reversing a transaction recorded on a distributed ledger maintained by a cryptographic system). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Examiner also respectfully disagrees and submits that dependent claims 21, 22, and 24 provide further definition to independent claim 1 therefore these claims also fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities of reversing a transaction recorded on a distributed ledger maintained by a cryptographic system). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of the claims in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: Step 2A Prong 2: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully asserts that even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, Applicant submits that the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application because they provide a technological improvement to blockchain and distributed ledger technology. The specification identifies a specific technical problem … The present claims are analogous to the claims found eligible in Ex Parte Desjardins. In Desjardins, the claims recited mathematical concepts but were found eligible because they addressed a specific technical problem ("catastrophic forgetting" in machine learning) and the specification identified improvements to how the technology itself operates. Similarly here, the claims address a specific technical problem in blockchain technology (immutability preventing legitimate reversals) and the specification identifies improvements to how the distributed ledger technology itself operates … The claims are also analogous to USPTO Example 41 (Cryptographic Communications), which found claims eligible where "the combination of additional elements use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limit[] the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application." Similarly, claim 1's cryptographic operations—computing a challenge for calculation of ledger closing by computing a cryptographic hash of all applicable ledger entries, and obtaining proofs based on the availability verifier value that verifies the redaction indicator—are used in a specific manner to solve a technical problem in blockchain technology, namely enabling secure and verifiable transaction reversals on an otherwise immutable ledger. Furthermore, the claims are analogous to cases found eligible under Enfish (improvement to data structures), Finjan (improvement to computer security), and SRI International (improvement to network security through analyzing data packets). Like the self-referential database in Enfish, the present claims recite specific data structures (ledger entries comprising redaction indicators, availability verifier values, and payloads) that improve how the distributed ledger stores and processes data. Like the virus scanning in Finjan and the network monitoring in SRI International, the present claims improve the security of a computer technology through specific cryptographic mechanisms. Applicant further submits that the rejection erred by dismissing the technical elements as "generic computer components" without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement … Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that unlike the claims in Ex Parte Desjardins, Enfish, and SRI International, amended independent claim 1 at issue further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a device”, “a distributed ledger”, “a cryptographic system”, “a network interface”, “memory”, “a processor”, “a first block into an immutable distributed ledger”, “an electronic communication”, “a cryptographic operation using a cryptographic system”, and “a second block incorporating the ledger entry to securely add the second block to the immutable distributed ledger”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices (i.e., mobile devices), a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of the claims in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
13. The best prior art of record, Anderson et al. (U.S. 2018/0131706), hereinafter, “Anderson” and G.Ateniese, B. Magri, D. Venturi and E. Andrade, "Redactable Blockchain – or - Rewriting History in Bitcoin and Friends," 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), Paris, France, 2017, pp. 111-126, doi:0.1109/EuroSP.201 7.37, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the at least instant application amended claim limitations of: "generate a ledger entry representing reversal of the transaction, where the ledger entry comprises a redaction indicator, an availability verifier value, and a payload indicative of the transaction, wherein the redaction indicator is a hash preimage of the availability verifier value; compute a challenge for calculation of ledger closing by computing a cryptographic hash of all applicable ledger entries; and broadcast a second block incorporating the ledger entry to securely add the second block to the immutable distributed ledger, wherein the second block is capable of being validated by using a cryptographic system to obtain a proof based on the availability verifier value that verifies the redaction indicator.” 2DOCKET No. 2012.07.038.MC0 (SAMS12-00554) APPLICATION NO. 13/758,303 PATENT
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew 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 Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696