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
The Amendment filed August 14, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application 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 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1, security for real-time transactions comprising: one or more configured to: receive a plurality of transaction reports, wherein each transaction report includes -signed instructions; and generate a plurality of data from the plurality of transaction reports by: dynamically spawning a number of worker processes that scale based on a variable rate that the transaction reports are generated at, wherein the worker processes are configured to process the -signed instructions in each transaction report; spawning a supervisor program configured to; allocate the plurality of transaction reports to the worker processes in parallel, monitor failed jobs performed by the worker processes, and automatically initiate re-processing of the failed jobs by the worker processes to provide fault tolerance for transactions associated with the -signed instructions; verifying the -signed instructions contained in the plurality of data to provide immutability across an append-only ledger; and transmitting the plurality of data to the append-only ledger for immutable recordation of the transactions. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 2 -: 2, the security of claim 1, wherein the plurality of transaction reports are received from at least one, and the one or more are configured to: compare a key- in the plurality of transaction reports with a signature of the at least one; and determine whether the key- matches the signature. Claim 3 -: 3, the security of claim 2, wherein the one or more are configured to: tag the plurality of transaction reports responsive to the key- matching the signature. Claim 4 -: 4, the security of claim 2, wherein the one... [id. at 3], store- a plurality of keys-. Claim 5 -: 5, the security of claim 1, wherein the one or more are configured to generate a data for an asset associated with the plurality of transaction reports. Claim 6 -: 6, the security of claim 1, wherein the one or more are configured to compress and store- the -signed instructions from the plurality of transaction reports as a linked-list. Claim 7 -: 7, the security of claim 1, wherein the one or more are configured to generate the plurality of data by: generating at least one data block comprising the. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 8 -: 8, a method comprising: receiving a plurality of transaction reports, wherein each transaction... [id. at 1], generating, by one or more, a plurality of data from the plurality of transaction reports by: dynamically spawning, by the one or more, a number of worker processes that scale based on a variable rate that the transaction reports are generated at, wherein the worker... [id. at 1], spawning, by the one or more, a supervisor program configured to: allocate the plurality... monitor failed jobs... automatically initiate... [id. at 1], verifying, by the one or more, the -signed instructions contained in the plurality of data to provide immutability across an append-only ledger; and transmitting, by the one or more, the plurality of data to the append-only ledger for immutable recordation of the transactions. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 9 -: 9, the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of transaction reports is received from at least one, the method comprising: comparing, by the one or more, a key- in the plurality of transaction reports with a signature of the at least one; and determining, by the one or more, whether the key- matches the signature. Claim 10 -: 10, the method of claim 9, comprising: tagging, by the one or more, the plurality of transaction reports responsive to the key- matching the signature. Claim 11 -: 11, the method of claim 9, comprising: storing-, by the one or more, a plurality of keys-. Claim 12 -: 12, the method of claim 8, comprising: generating, by the one or more, a data for an asset associated with the plurality of transaction reports. Claim 13 -: 13, the method of claim 8, comprising: compressing, by the one or more, the -signed instructions from the plurality of transaction reports; and storing-, by the one or more, the plurality of instructions as a linked-list. Claim 14 -: 14, the method of claim 8, wherein generating the plurality of data comprises: generating, by the one or more, at least one data block comprising the. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 15 -: 15, a -readable non-transitory storage medium storing- instructions, which when executed by one or more cause the one or more to: receive a plurality... wherein each transaction... [id. at 1], generate a plurality of data from the plurality of reports by: dynamically spawning a number of worker processes that scale based on a variable rate that the reports are generated at; wherein the worker... [id. at 1], spawning a supervisor program configured to: allocate the plurality... monitor failed jobs... automatically initiate... verifying the -signed... transmitting the... [id. at 1], (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 16 -: 16, the readable non-transitory storage medium of claim 15, wherein the plurality of transaction reports is received from at least one, and wherein the instructions cause the one or more to: compare a key- in... determine whether... [id. at 2], Claim 17 -: 17, the readable non-transitory storage medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the one or more to: tag the plurality... [id. at 3], Claim 18 -: 18, the readable non-transitory storage medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions... [id. at 17], store- a plurality... [id. at 4], Claim 19 -: 19, the readable non-transitory storage medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions cause the one or more to generate a data for an asset associated with the plurality of transaction reports. Claim 20 -: 20, the readable non-transitory storage medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions cause the one or more to compress and store- the -signed instructions from the plurality of transaction reports as a linked-list. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: settlement of securities trades using append only ledgers 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). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 8 and is described by the steps of independent claim 15.
Claim 1 (as amended): Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 1 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "cryptographic", "system", "processors", "cryptographically", "blockchain data blocks", "generating a Merkle Root", "hashes", "distributed append-only ledger", and "network node". However, independent claim 1 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "cryptographic", "system", "processors", "cryptographically", "blockchain data blocks", "generating a Merkle Root", "hashes", "distributed append-only ledger", and "network node" of independent claim 1 (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 cryptographic security system for real-time transactions comprising", "one or more processors configured to", "receive a plurality of transaction reports", "wherein each transaction report includes cryptographically-signed instructions; and", "generate a plurality of blockchain … of transaction reports by", "dynamically spawning a number of … reports are generated at", "wherein the worker processes are … in each transaction report", "spawning a supervisor program configured to", "allocate the plurality of transaction … worker processes in parallel", "monitor failed jobs performed by the worker processes, and", "automatically initiate re-processing of the … with the cryptographically-signed instructions", "cryptographically verifying the cryptographically-signed instructions … distributed append-only ledger; and" and "transmitting the plurality of blockchain … recordation of the transactions") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "transmitting the plurality of blockchain … recordation of the transactions" 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. 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 "transmitting the plurality of blockchain … recordation of the transactions", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and 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 the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 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 1 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 8 (as amended): Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 8 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "cryptographically", "processors", "blockchain data blocks", "generating a Merkel Root", "cryptographic", "hashes", "distributed append-only ledger", and "network node". However, independent claim 8 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "cryptographically", "processors", "blockchain data blocks", "generating a Merkel Root", "cryptographic", "hashes", "distributed append-only ledger", and "network node" of independent claim 8 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a method comprising", "receiving a plurality of transaction reports", "wherein each transaction report includes cryptographically-signed instructions; and", "generating, by one or more … of transaction reports by", "dynamically spawning, by the one … reports are generated at", "wherein the worker processes are … in each transaction report", "spawning, by the one or … supervisor program configured to", "allocate the plurality of transaction … worker processes in parallel", "monitor failed jobs performed by the worker processes, and", "automatically initiate re-processing of the … with the cryptographically-signed instructions", "cryptographically verifying, by the one … distributed append-only ledger; and" and "transmitting, by the one or … recordation of the transactions") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "transmitting, by the one or … recordation of the transactions" 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 1 also applies hereto. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "transmitting, by the one or … recordation of the transactions", (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 1 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 8 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 15 (as amended): Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 15 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer", "storing", "processors", "cryptographically", "blockchain data blocks", "generating a Merkle Root", "cryptographic ", "hashes", "distributed append-only ledger", and "network node". However, independent claim 15 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer", "storing", "processors", "cryptographically", "blockchain data blocks", "generating a Merkle Root", "cryptographic ", "hashes", "distributed append-only ledger", and "network node" of independent claim 15 (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-readable non-transitory storage medium … or more processors to", "receive a plurality of transaction reports", "wherein each transaction report includes cryptographically-signed instructions; and", "generate a plurality of blockchain … plurality of reports by", "dynamically spawning a number of … reports are generated at", "wherein the worker processes are … in each transaction report", "spawning a supervisor program configured to", "allocate the plurality of transaction … worker processes in parallel", "monitor failed jobs performed by the worker processes, and", "automatically initiate re-processing of the … with the cryptographically-signed instructions", "cryptographically verifying the cryptographically-signed instructions … distributed append-only ledger; and" and "transmitting the plurality of blockchain … recordation of the transactions") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium … or more processors to", "transmitting the plurality of blockchain … recordation of the transactions" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium … or more processors to", "transmitting the plurality of blockchain … recordation of the transactions", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, and restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1. 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 15 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 2 and 9: Dependent claims 2 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "computer", "device", and "key " of dependent claims 2 and 9 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.
Claims 4 and 18: Dependent claims 4 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "store", and "keys" of dependent claims 4 and 18 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.
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "a blockchain data block" of dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 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.
Claims 6, 13, and 20: Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "store or storing" of dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 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.
Claims 7 and 14: Dependent claims 7 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "metadata" of dependent claims 7 and 14 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.
Claim 11: Dependent claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "storing", and "keys" of dependent claim 11 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.
Claim 16: Dependent claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "device", and "key " of dependent claim 16 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.
Claim 2: Dependent claim 2 adds additional method steps of "wherein the plurality of transaction reports are received from at least one computer device, and the one or more processors are configured to", "compare a cryptographic key in the plurality of transaction reports with a signature of the at least one computer device; and", "determine whether the cryptographic key matches the signature". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 2 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, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited 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 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3: Dependent claim 3 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more processors are configured to", "tag the plurality of transaction reports responsive to the cryptographic key matching the signature". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 3 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 2 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 2 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 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4: Dependent claim 4 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more processors are configured to", "store a plurality of cryptographic keys". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 4 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 1 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 15, pertaining 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 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5: Dependent claim 5 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate a blockchain data block for an asset associated with the plurality of transaction reports". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 5 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 2 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 2 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 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6: Dependent claim 6 adds additional method steps of "wherein the one or more processors are configured to compress and store the cryptographically-signed instructions from the plurality of transaction reports as a linked-list". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 6 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 1 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 4 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 4 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining 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 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7: Dependent claim 7 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the plurality of blockchain data blocks by", "generating at least one metadata block comprising the cryptographic hashes". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 7 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 2 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 2 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 7 is ineligible.
Claim 9: Dependent claim 9 adds an additional method step of "wherein the plurality of transaction reports is received from at least one computer device, the method comprising", "comparing, by the one or more processors, a cryptographic key in the plurality of transaction reports with a signature of the at least one computer device; and", "determining, by the one or more processors, whether the cryptographic key matches the signature". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 9 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 2 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 2 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 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10: Dependent claim 10 adds an additional method step of "tagging, by the one or more processors, the plurality of transaction reports responsive to the cryptographic key matching the signature". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 10 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 2 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 2 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 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11: Dependent claim 11 adds an additional method step of "storing, by the one or more processors, a plurality of cryptographic keys". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 11 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 1 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 4 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 4 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining 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 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 adds an additional method step of "generating, by the one or more processors, a blockchain data block for an asset associated with the plurality of transaction reports". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 12 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 2 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 2 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 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13: Dependent claim 13 adds an additional method step of "compressing, by the one or more processors, the cryptographically-signed instructions from the plurality of transaction reports; and", "storing, by the one or more processors, the plurality of instructions as a linked-list". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 13 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the a