DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 10/20/25 and IDS filed on 12/8/25. Claims 1, 21, 22 and 41 were amended. Claims 3, 5-6, 9-10, 20 and 23-40 were cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11-19, 21-22 and 41 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot due to amendments that are substantive. Per example, amended claim 1 recites “transmitting the event transaction to a node of a blockchain …” that includes additional elements necessitating reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Examiner Notes
Prior art of record include US 20190188711 A1 (Wu) disclosing cross-ledger transfers between distributed ledgers and US 20210073811 A1 (Chan) disclosing blockchain-implemented systems and methods for concurrent bytecode interpretation.
combination of Wu and Chan teach,
receiving an asset interaction event request comprising data indicative of at least two clients associated with an asset interaction event and data indicative of the asset,
determining a first input of an event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint from the set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset, the set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset defined by a spending relationship between a first subset of the blockchain transactions in the set of transactions associated with the asset;
determining a second input of the event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint of a first set of blockchain transactions associated a first client of the at least two clients, the first set of blockchain transactions associated with the first client defined by the spending relationship between a second subset of the blockchain transactions in the first set of transactions associated with the first client;
transmitting
however, none of the references, individually or in combination, teach,
determining a third input of the event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint of a second set of blockchain transactions associated a second client of the at least two clients, the second set of blockchain transactions associated with the second client defined by the spending relationship between a third subset of the blockchain transactions in the second set of transactions associated with the second client, wherein the spending relationship for each of the first subset, second subset, and third subset requires that each transaction in each of the first subset, second subset, and third subset spends an output of a previous transaction in the respective first subset, second subset, or third subset;
generating the event transaction by generating a blockchain transaction comprising a reference to the set of transactions associated with the asset, references to the sets of transactions associated with the at least two clients, the first input, the second input, and the third input.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/8/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – intended Use
Claim 1 recites “determining a first input of an event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint…”, “determining a second input of the event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint …” and “determining a third input of the event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint …”. The claim recites determining first second and third inputs of an event with an intent to spend their outpoints because "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”, see MPEP 2114 (II). As such, the limitation “that is configured to spend a respective outpoint …” associated with the determination of the first, second and third inputs have no patentable weight. Same is true for claims 21, 22 and 41.
Claim 1 recites “transmitting the event transaction to a node of a blockchain to cause the node to process …”. The claim recites transmitting with an intent “to cause the node to process …” because "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”, see MPEP 2114 (II). As such, the limitation “to cause the node to process …” has no patentable weight. Same is true for claims 21, 22 and 41.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11-19, 21-22 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claim 1), an apparatus (claim 21), another apparatus (claim 22) and an article of manufacture (claim 41). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 21 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of managing spending transactions based on their relationships, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A device configured to perform a computer-implemented method for tracking, on a blockchain, at least two clients interacting with an asset, wherein the blockchain comprises a set of transactions associated with the asset, and a set of transactions associated with each client, the method comprising the steps:
receiving an asset interaction event request comprising data indicative of at least two clients associated with an asset interaction event and data indicative of the asset,
determining a first input of an event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint from the set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset, the set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset defined by a spending relationship between a first subset of the blockchain transactions in the set of transactions associated with the asset;
determining a second input of the event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint of a first set of blockchain transactions associated a first client of the at least two clients, the first set of blockchain transactions associated with the first client defined by the spending relationship between a second subset of the blockchain transactions in the first set of transactions associated with the first client;
determining a third input of the event transaction that is configured to spend a respective outpoint of a second set of blockchain transactions associated a second client of the at least two clients, the second set of blockchain transactions associated with the second client defined by the spending relationship between a third subset of the blockchain transactions in the second set of transactions associated with the second client, wherein the spending relationship for each of the first subset, second subset, and third subset requires that each transaction in each of the first subset, second subset, and third subset spends an output of a previous transaction in the respective first subset, second subset, or third subset;
generating the event transaction by generating a blockchain transaction comprising a reference to the set of transactions associated with the asset, references to the sets of transactions associated with the at least two clients, the first input, the second input, and the third input;
transmitting the event transaction to a node of the blockchain to cause the node to process the event transaction for incorporation into the blockchain.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A device configured to perform a computer-implemented method for […], on a blockchain, […], wherein the blockchain comprises […], the method comprising the steps”. This is merely “apply it” as the “blockchain” and “perform a computer-implemented method” are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results. Furthermore, this is general linking as the “blockchain” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
“transmitting the event transaction to a node of the blockchain to cause the node to process the event transaction for incorporation into the blockchain”. This is merely “apply it” as the “transmitting … to cause the node to process …” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
(Step 2B) 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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing spending transactions based on their relationships, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 7 recited “wherein the set of transactions associated with the asset pertains to an event stream associated with the asset and each set of transactions associated with a given client among the at least two clients pertains to an event stream associated with said given client”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“an event stream”. This is general linking as the “event stream” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing spending transactions based on their relationships, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 8 recited “wherein each event stream represents a respective smart contract such that the event stream tracks a sequence of events associated with the smart contract”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“each event stream represents a respective smart contract such that the event stream tracks a sequence of events associated with the smart contract”. This is merely “apply it” as “each event stream represents a respective smart contract such that the event stream tracks a sequence of events associated with the smart contract” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results. This is also general linking as the “event stream” and “smart contract” do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing spending transactions based on their relationships, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 15 recited “receiving a creation request to create a set of transactions associated with the asset” and “generating and submitting to the blockchain a first ownership transaction associated with the set of transactions associated with the asset and associated with a set of transactions that is associated with a first client of the at least two clients”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“submitting to the blockchain”. This is merely “apply it” as “submitting to the blockchain” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results. This is also general linking as the “blockchain” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing spending transactions based on their relationships, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 16 recited “wherein the first ownership transaction comprises a digital fingerprint uniquely identifying the asset”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
This is also general linking as the “digital [fingerprint]” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing spending transactions based on their relationships, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 2, 4, 11-14 and 17-19, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
References made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, include:
US 20190188711 A1 (Wu) disclosing cross-ledger transfers between distributed ledgers, and
US 20210073811 A1 (Chan) disclosing blockchain-implemented systems and methods for concurrent bytecode interpretation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692