DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on February 4, 2026.
Claims 13-20 are been examined in this application. Claims 1-12 are cancelled.
No information disclosure statements (IDS) has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/31/2025, pages 5-15, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a novel solution to prevent fraud in digital transactions using blockchain in an unconventional way, which is captured by the claims. Applicant cites the Specification and argues that the claims include a generation of a blockchain transfer request and cryptographic verification process, non-submitted but fully executable BC transfer commands.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The claims are found to still be directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 13 has been amended to include two wherein clauses which are directed to the verifying of the cryptocurrency amount in the first wallet without verification of assets in a bank and that the transfer command is non-submitted transfer blockchain request but is executable on the blockchain and does not show as a pending transaction on the wallets and unknown to the blockchain.
Claim 13 is a method claim and raises various issues that render the claim interpretation broader that what Applicant argues. The claim fails to disclose which entity carries out the claim limitations (one-by-one) and overall is directed to a transfer of a “fiat currency transaction” based on a “transaction identifier” and a “user device identifier” and “a blockchain (BC) transfer command to transfer a cryptocurrency amount…” The claim is interpreted as being directed to just the transfer of cryptocurrency based on the blockchain transfer command. As claim 13 is a method claim, the conditional limitations determine whether the remaining claim limitations are to be considered or not. Based on the above broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is deemed to amount to the receiving firs limitation, which is understood to be directed to a “a blockchain (BC) transfer command to transfer a cryptocurrency amount” between parties, verifying the command, verifying the first wallet, monitoring the fiat currency transaction and the first wallet on the blockchain (second party evaluation of fraud is outside the scope and is not positively recited so has no patentable weight and not considered as an additional element under BRI analysis for patent eligibility/101), and deleting the BC transfer command. The fact that the claim recites deleting the command, and based on the Specification, the transfer of cryptocurrency based on the “a blockchain (BC) transfer command to transfer a cryptocurrency amount” is no longer going to occur. As a result, the remaining two limitations in claim 13 do not have to take place/occur. As a result, per claim 13, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of deleting or canceling a transaction in response to manipulation of data without significantly more. Per claim 19, the claim is directed to a system, the system DOES NOT include the second party or the first party. Therefore, all limitations directed to what the second party does and / or what the first party does are outside the scope of the claims and are clearly not given any patentable weight or deemed as additional elements under 101. Furthermore, claim 19 is not parallel to claim 13, failing to recite elements in claim 13 that are instead taken out and somewhat included in claim 20. Regardless of the consistency of claim 13 and 19, claim 19 is directed to “initiating an out-of-band workflow for a currency fiat currency transaction between a first party and a second party” and “obtaining a blockchain (BC) transfer command associated with the first party…” and “preventing the BC transfer command from being submitted…” and “monitoring the first wallet on the BC…” and “deleting the BC transfer command” and “submitting the BC command…” Per claim 19, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea of settlement of a transaction (the submission of the blockchain (BC) transfer command to transfer a cryptocurrency amount) in response to manipulation of data without significantly more. Yes, claim 19 has more limitations that are considered under 101 but these limitations still capture an abstract idea and said abstract idea is devoid of any additional elements that would amount to a practical application. The settlement of the blockchain (BC) transfer command to transfer a cryptocurrency amount is based on whether the system receives a fraud determination regarding the non-cryptocurrency transaction, the fiat transaction. This is a fundamental economic principal of mitigating risk, and a commercial interaction including sales activities and business transaction. Escrow is a great example to show how the claims are using such an abstract concept within the cryptocurrency real. The claims fail to add any additional elements that would result in an improvement to technology, blockchain, security including cryptographical novel limitations, or an improvement to a device.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the claims fail to provide “specific logical structures and processes that improve blockchain-based transaction system” without asset verification with a bank, and generating a non-submitted BC transfer request that is not yet submitted pending the fraud determination. Id., 7-8.
At best, a blockchain would be the only additional element in claim 13. No other additional elements are identified in claim 13. A blockchain transfer command is just a message or a command that is recite at a high level and fails to capture any technical elements that would be deemed as an additional element. Likewise, verifying a wallet as existing in a blockchain is general, not invented by the Applicant and fails to capture anything other than what is known and operation of blockchain technology as a whole. Cryptographically verifying on the blockchain cryptocurrency is again not something that is going to be considered as an additional element in this Application because it is high level generic functions carried out by a generic device performing generic functions. The cryptography is not recited as being carried out in a manner that result in an improvement to a technology or field or the device improvement. It’s just generic cryptography. Per claim 19, the claim recites all the structural additional elements (first 3 limitations). The claim fails to include additional elements that would amount to a practical application.
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as manipulating data, including receiving data, analyzing the data, and determining an outcome. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic devices. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is simply being linked to a particular technological environment or field of use; MPEP 2106.05(h). In other words, the concept of escrow or collateral in loans is applied to blockchain and cryptocurrency technology so that it is used as collateral in case of a fiat currency transaction being determined as fraudulent.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the out-of-band blockchain monitoring are outside of the scope because the monitoring is done by the second party which is not part of the claimed scope. Even if it was it would have to be recited in a manner that would capture a technical improvement rather than merely using a different communication method to monitor a fiat transaction. Furthermore, the Applicant tries to link the instant claims with memo regarding Ex parte Desjardins. The basis of the rejection was not the argued case law. Therefore, such arguments are moot. Furthermore, the cited case law has nothing in comman with the instant claims. Where in the claim is a neural network recited that amounts to a practical application based on enhancing the actual AI technology?
In conclusion, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner finds no additional elements in the claims as a whole that would amount to a practical application. All additional elements, as recited above, fail to amount to a practical application as they merely automate the abstract idea/apply the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic devices. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims, under Step-2B, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the claims recite specific technical limitations in verifying blockchain transactions and monitoring the transactions in a cryptographic manner. Furthermore, the claims are argued as implementing unconventional use of blockchain and fiat currency, provide improvements in computer security and transaction processing. Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more because the cryptographic elements recited in the claims are not well-understood, routine or conventional regarding fiat currency and fiat currency fraud detection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further capture the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims contain conditional limitations, which are not positive limitations that result in patentable weight. Also, per claim 13, the claim fails to recite which entity carries out all the claim limitations (i.e. receiving, by_____, a transaction identifier…). Claims 13 and 19 recite limitations carried out by at least a second party. The second party is outside the scope of the claims. Per claim 19, said second party could be rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for indefiniteness since the second party is outside the scope of the claimed server system. The limitations directed to the second party and what the second party does are deemed descriptive. The dependent claims include typographical errors and alternate scenarios to those of the independent claims. Claim 17 for example include element or step “310” in the claim. Some dependent claims are also objected for capturing what the second party does. Amending the claims to include both the server and the second party would overcome the majority of the issues. Finally, claims 13 and 19 recite “monitoring…” the claims could be rejected under 112(a) for lack of written support for how the server monitors the currency. The Specification recites the second party as the party and perform fraud validation not the server and that the server merely receives an indication of fraud or no fraud from the second party without actually performing the claimed “monitoring…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 13-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of deleting or canceling a transaction in response to manipulation of data without significantly more, per claim 13. While the abstract idea of claim 19 is determined to be directed to merely settlement of a transaction responsive to manipulation of data without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically, commercial interactions including sales activities and business relations and fundamental economic principals including mitigating risk. The settlement of a transaction or submission of a transaction including a transfer of funds is the definition of a sales activity and captures business relations between the payor and payee. The rules are merely means to determine whether or not to submit the transfer command or not. The use of cryptocurrency in place of traditional fiat currency in a manner similar to escrow or collateral in loans is amounts to merely the abstract idea being applied on a computer and using the computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. Furthermore, such an escrow / collateral concept involving cryptocurrency is nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical field without actually amounting to a practical application rooted in computer technology, technical solution to a technical problem or technical solution in a technical field.
Claim 13 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving a transaction identifier for a fiat currency transaction, a user device identifier for a first party to the fiat currency transaction, and a blockchain (BC) transfer command to transfer a cryptocurrency amount from a first wallet associated with the first party to a second wallet associated with a party of the fiat currency transaction;
verifying the BC transfer command;
verifying the first wallet exists on a BC and includes at least the cryptocurrency amount;
monitoring the fiat currency transaction and the first wallet on the BC while the second party evaluates the fiat currency transaction for fraud;
deleting the BC transfer command when the second party confirms the fiat currency transaction was not associated with any fraud;
submitting the BC transfer command to the BC to cause the cryptocurrency amount to transfer from the first wallet to the second wallet when fraud is detected for the fiat currency transaction, wherein the BC transfer command is digitally signed with a private key of the first party and a public key of the second wallet and is cryptographically verifiable on the BC with the public key of the first wallet to verify a digital signature of the first party and with a first wallet identifier to identify the first wallet and its balance or pending transaction on the BC;
wherein verifying the first wallet exists on the BC comprises cryptographically verifying on the BC that the cryptocurrency amount is available in the first wallet without verification of assets with a bank of the first party because cryptocurrency assets are used as collateral and wallets are viewable from or transparent on the BC: and wherein the BC transfer command is a non-submitted BC transfer request that is fully executable on the BC but has not yet been submitted to the BC such that it does not show as a pending transaction on the wallets and is unknown to the BC until submitted.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is deemed to be directed, per claim 13, to limitations up to the deletion limitation because the rest of the claim is directed to another conditional aspect that does not have to occur. With regard to claim 19, even if the additional limitations are added to the analysis of eligibility, they fail to include any additional elements to amount to a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a blockchain (BC) transfer command, wherein the BC transfer command is digitally signed with a private key of the first party and a public key of the second wallet and is cryptographically verifiable on the BC with the public key of the first wallet to verify a digital signature of the first party and with a first wallet identifier to identify the first wallet and its balance or pending transaction on the BC, a server, at least one processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage media, instructions, and APIs. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, analyzing the data, and determining an outcome (manipulating data). The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic devices. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art
An extensive search was carried out; however, no obvious combination of references was deemed possible to teach the claim limitations as a whole. The references cited and those considered teach different embodiments of the claimed scope. For example, the references teach determining whether there is fraudulent behavior is detected during a digital currency transaction and based on the determination either allowing or rejecting a transaction. If the transaction is allowed based on some threshold of fraud, the transaction can record the score of the fraud into the transaction block on a distributed ledger. Also, the settlement of Fiat currency does not require the use of digital currency. Meaning, fiat currency is comprised of standard currency such as the United States Dollar. The claims are directed to the settlement of a fiat currency while also including a pending digital currency transaction that is dependent on the determination of whether or not the fiat currency transaction is determined to be fraudulent or not. As a result, the combination of the claim limitations as a whole are determined to be non-obvious over the prior art; allowable over prior art.
WO Publication 2016/186872 to Davis teaches method for Sinking blockchain transactions to privately verified identities includes: storing account profiles, each profile including data related to a transaction account including an account identifier and account data; receiving a transaction message, the message including a first data element configured to store a personal account number, a second data element configured to store a merchant identifier, and a third data element configured to store a blockchain network identifier; identifying a first account profile that includes the personal account number; identifying a second account profile that includes the merchant identifier; receiving a transaction notification, the notification indicating a transaction processed using a blockchain network associated with the blockchain network identifier and including a transaction identifier and an address identifier associated with the first or second account profile; and storing a linkage between the transaction identifier and the address identifier, the personal account number, and/or the merchant identifier.
Davis also teaches issuer 112 may assess a risk for the transaction based on an evaluation provided by the processing server 110 or performed by the issuer 112, such as based on the payer's available funds, credit history, or other fraud, sanction, and/or risk considerations that will be apparent to persons having skill in the relevant art. In some embodiments, the acquirer 114 may assess a risk for the transaction prior to processing by the biockchain network 106. For instance, the acquirer 14 may evaluate the reliability of the payer 102, an expectation of fraud, etc. based on data provided by the issuer 112, processing server 110, or third-party entity, as discussed in more detail below. In some instances, the payer 102 may decline the use of chargeback or payment protection in exchange for a discount offered by the payee 104 (e.g., a merchant), which may be beneficial for the merchant 104 as a result of reduced fees. In other instances, the payee 104 may decline the use of risk assessments and other protections for a transaction.
In addition, by processing blockchain transactions using payment networks, payment networks may be able to evaluate the likelihood of fraud and assess risk for blockchain transactions using existing fraud and risk algorithms and information that is available to payment networks, such as historical fiat and blockchain transaction data, credit bureau data, demographic information, etc., that is unavailable for use in blockchain networks 106. As a result, payers 102 and payees 104 may engage in blockchain transactions with added safeguards against fraud and risk. In addition, the evaluation of risk may be used by a financial institution to provide the consumer with funds or an indication of thereof to a payee (e.g., a merchant supplying a product to the payer) without waiting for the significantly long processing time of traditional blockchain transactions.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0075453 to Durvasula et al. teaches system for operating a payment network with a blockchain-based ledger may prepare a request to complete a transaction from an account associated with a payer digital wallet for entry on the blockchain. The request may include an amount and payee address associated with a payee digital wallet. The system may also send the request to the blockchain using a blockchain interface. The system may approve or decline the request. The system may further adjust a balance of the payer a balance of the payee to reflect approval of the request. The adjustment may include writing the transaction to the blockchain. A digital currency issuer system 101 may serve as the interface between external systems (e.g., EFT systems 102 or the lending systems 104) and the payment network. Digital currency issuer system 101 may notify the digital currency smart contract 112 of any external events initiated by a user such as, for example, fund transfers or line of credit approvals. Digital currency issuer system 101 may ensure that the digital representation of balances match the fiat balances. As used herein, a fiat balance or a fiat currency refers to a currency established as money by government law or regulation. In that regard, a digital balance may match a fiat balance (i.e., hard currency balance) of an account if the digital currently balance accurately reflects the fiat account balance after applying a conversion rate. For example, if the digital currency can be transferred to and from dollars at a 1:1 rate, then the digital balance matches the fiat balance when the account balances are the same or similar.
Payment system 100 may also include a risk assessment system 108 configured to interact with blockchain 110 by blockchain interface 116. Risk assessment system 108 may be in communication with the Blockchain. Risk assessment system 108 may receive and send messages to blockchain 110 over blockchain interface 116. Risk assessment system 108 may retain historical information about user agents, device IDs, transactions, and other data coupled to a user and/or user account. Risk assessment system 108 may assess the likelihood of fraud for a transaction request and provide the assessment to the digital currency smart contract 112 of blockchain 110. Blockchain 110 may be configured to apply changes in response to an acceptable likelihood of fraud and roll the changes back in response to an unacceptable likelihood of fraud.
In various embodiments, digital wallet 120 may prepare a blockchain request using process 500, for example (Block 710). The blockchain request may include the payment details including payee address and amount. Digital wallet 120 may interact with blockchain 110 using blockchain interface 116 to send the payment request to blockchain 110 (Block 712). Digital wallet 120 may present payer 752 with a payment submission confirmation (Block 714). A payment event notification may be generated in response to the transaction request for digital currency smart contract 112 on blockchain 110 (Block 716). The payment event notification may notify risk assessment systems 108 of a requested transaction for fraud risk assessment. The transaction request may be analyzed by risk assessment system 108 to assess whether the transaction poses an acceptable fraud risk (Block 718).
Further non-patent literature and foreign patent searches were conducted but no new references were found to teach the instant claimed scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights