DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE, amendment and response filed on 5/11/26 and IDS filed on 5/11/26. Claims 1, 21, 22 and 41 were amended. 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 Applicant argues that temporal sequencing of transactions especially constraints imposed by the spending of dust output integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the temporal sequence improves reliability of a subsequent transaction associated with an asset.
The Examiner disagrees. The concept that the Applicant describes is not an improvement to technology but an improvement to a business process that sequentially orders transactions based on spending of outputs associated with an asset to improve the reliability of subsequent transactions associated with the asset. It’s essentially, imposing a restriction on an asset transaction by spending a monetary value associated with an asset first then performing any subsequent transactions associated with the asset. That’s a business process not an improvement to technology.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 5/11/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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 (from claims 1, 21, 22 and 41) 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 context of 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:
identifying a set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset;
identifying a first set of blockchain transactions associated with a first client of the at least two clients;
identifying a second set of blockchain transactions associated with a second client of the at least two clients;
wherein, for each of the set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset, the first set of blockchain transactions associated with the first client, and the second set of blockchain transactions associated with the second client, the respective set of blockchain transactions is defined such that there is a spending relationship between at least a subset of transactions in the set, the spending relationship being such that a transaction representing an earlier event comprises a dust output and a transaction representing a next event comprises an input that spends the dust output, such that each respective set of blockchain transactions defines a chain of transactions, each transaction in the chain representing a respective event, wherein each dust output has a value that is below a defined limit for a transaction or that is equal to a defined minimum value;
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 wherein the first input references a first outpoint identifying a dust output of a previous transaction in the set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset, and wherein the first input is configured to spend the respective dust output;
determining a second input of the event transaction, wherein the second input references a second outpoint identifying a dust output of a previous transaction in the first set of blockchain transactions associated with the first client, and wherein the second input is configured to spend the respective dust output;
determining a third input of the event transaction, wherein the third input references a third outpoint identifying a dust output of a previous transaction in the second set of blockchain transactions associated with the second client, and wherein the third input is configured to spend the respective dust output;
generating the event transaction by generating a blockchain transaction comprising a reference to the set of blockchain transactions associated with the asset, references to the first and second sets of blockchain transactions, the first input, the second input, and the third input, such that processing the event transaction for incorporation into the blockchain appends the event transaction to each respective set of blockchain transactions to establish a chronological order of events in each respective set of blockchain transactions; and
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 tracking, on a blockchain, at least two clients interacting with […], wherein the blockchain comprises […], and […] associated with each client, the method comprising”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[identifying …] a first client of the at least two clients […]”, “[identifying …] a second client of the at least two clients […]” and “[receiving …] at least two clients […]”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[determining a first input of an event transaction …, and wherein the first input] is configured to [spend the respective dust output]”, “[determining a second input …, and wherein the second input] is configured to [spend the respective dust output]” and “[determining a third input …, and wherein the third input] is configured to [spend the respective dust output]”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the “first”, “second” and “third” inputs are configured to “spend the respective dust output”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“generating the event transaction …, such that processing the event transaction for incorporation into the blockchain appends the event transaction to each respective set of blockchain transactions”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“transmitting [the event transaction] to a node of the blockchain to cause the node to process the event transaction for incorporation into the blockchain”. “transmitting [the event transaction] to a node of the blockchain” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). “transmitting … to cause the node to process the event transaction for incorporation into the blockchain” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the transmission causes “the node to process the event transaction for incorporation into the blockchain”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, 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 context of their relationships.
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims, claim 7 recites “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”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, 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 context of their relationships.
Claim 8 recites “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”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, 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 context of their relationships
Claim 15 recites “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”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, 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 context of their relationships.
Claim 16 recites “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:
“digital [fingerprint]”. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, 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 context of their relationships.
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 20190266601 A1 (Allen) disclosing directing an exchange associated with an anonymously held token on a blockchain.
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
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights