DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 3/15/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. Claims 1, 17-18, 44-45 are amended
b. Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-15, 20, 22-24, 29-34, 36-43, 46-47 are cancelled
Overall, claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 16-19, 21, 25-28, 35, 44-45 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 5, 8, 10, 16-19, 21, 25-28, 35, 44-45 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 16-19, 21, 25-28, 35 are directed to a computer implemented method, claim 44 is directed to a system, and claim 45 is directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 44, 45) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 44, 45) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer-implemented method of reducing storage and bandwidth requirements of validating token transactions by reducing number of token transactions which must be accessed and loaded into memory of a computing device
[B] wherein a token transaction is a blockchain transaction of a blockchain network, the blockchain transaction including one or more token outputs, each token output locking a respective amount of tokens, and
[C] wherein the method is performed by the computing device of a validating entity and comprises:
[D] loading, into memory of the computing device, a token mint transaction comprising cryptographic minting data and minting an initial amount of the tokens and/or
[E] loading, into memory of the computing device, a token setup transaction comprising the cryptographic minting data certified by a token issuer;
[F] loading, into memory of the computing device, a target token transaction comprising one or more token inputs and one or more token outputs; and
[G] validating the target token transaction, wherein said validating of the target token transaction comprises:
[H] verifying that each token input of the target token transaction comprises the cryptographic minting data, without loading, into memory of the computing device, a previously
validated token transaction to verify that each token input of the target token transaction references the previously validated token transaction which comprises the cryptographic minting data, and/or
[I] verifying that each token input of the target token transaction references a respective
token output of a respective previously validated token transaction without loading, into memory
of the computing device, any intermediate transactions in a transaction chain between the
previously validated token transaction and the token mint transaction to verify that the
respective previously validated token transaction can be traced back to the token mint
transaction;
[J] on condition that the target token transaction is a valid token transaction, generating a cryptographic signature by applying a digital signature algorithm to a predefined portion of the target token transaction together with a private key corresponding to a validating public key associated with the validating entity; and
[K] including the cryptographic signature in an input of the target token transaction.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 44, 45) recites: validating a token transaction ([G]), verifying the input of each token transaction for mint data ([H]), verifying that each token input refers to a token output ([I]), and generating a cryptographic signature to be included in the token transaction ([J], [K]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of business relations, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step validating the target token transaction, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally authorizing, without physical aid. Further, the step verifying that each token input of the target token transaction comprises the cryptographic minting data, without loading, into memory of the computing device, a previously validated token transaction to verify that each token input of the target token transaction references the previously validated token transaction which comprises the cryptographic minting data, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally performing a conditional verification, without physical aid. Further, the step verifying that each token input of the target token transaction references a respective token output of a respective previously validated token transaction without loading, into memory of the computing device, any intermediate transactions in a transaction chain between the previously validated token transaction and the token mint transaction to verify that the respective previously validated token transaction can be traced back to the token mint transaction, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally performing a conditional verification, without physical aid. Further, the step generating a cryptographic signature by applying a digital signature algorithm to a predefined portion of the target token transaction together with a private key corresponding to a validating public key associated with the validating entity, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally signing a token transaction, without physical aid. Further, the step including the cryptographic signature in an input of the target token transaction, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally attaching the signature to the transaction, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 44, 45) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the additional elements “wherein a token transaction is a blockchain transaction of a blockchain network, the blockchain transaction including one or more token outputs, each token output locking a respective amount of tokens”; “wherein the method is performed by the computing device of a validating entity”; as applied to token transaction, the computer method are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: loading, into memory of the computing device, a token mint transaction comprising cryptographic minting data and minting an initial amount of the tokens and/or ([D]) loading, into memory of the computing device, a token setup transaction comprising the cryptographic minting data certified by a token issuer ([E]) loading, into memory of the computing device, a target token transaction comprising one or more token inputs and one or more token outputs ([F]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 44, 45) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 44, 45) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 44, 45 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 8 recites:
wherein the target token transaction comprises one or more non-token inputs that reference respective outputs of previous blockchain transactions, and
wherein the method comprising
identifying the one or more non- token inputs as inputs that comprise one or more of a predetermined set of public keys, and,
wherein validating the target token transaction comprises
verifying that a total amount of tokens locked by the one or more token outputs of the target token transaction is not greater than an amount locked by the one or more respective token outputs referenced by the one or more token inputs of the target token transaction.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites:
wherein the target token transaction comprises one or more non-token inputs and one or more non-token outputs, and
wherein validating the target token transaction comprises
verifying that a total amount of tokens locked by the one or more token outputs of the target token transaction is not greater than an amount locked by the token outputs referenced by the one or more token inputs.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 16 recites:
wherein the validating entity stores a record of previously validated token transactions, and
wherein verifying that a respective token input of the target token transaction references a respective token output of a previously validated token transaction comprises
determining whether the referenced token output is present in the record of previously validated token transactions.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 16 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites:
calculating a Merkle root based on a set of valid token transactions, including the target token transaction, by constructing a Merkle Tree,
wherein the leaves of the Merkle Tree are based on at least the identifiers of the valid token transactions in the set;
constructing a current token block,
wherein the current token block comprises a token block header and the set of valid token transactions, and/or identifiers thereof, and
wherein the token block header comprises the Merkle root.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 18 recites:
wherein the validating entity maintains a sequence of previously constructed token blocks
generating the block header of the current token block by applying a cryptographic hash function to a respective block header of a token block immediately preceding the current token block in the sequence.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites:
constructing a respective token block for each newly published block of the blockchain.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites:
receiving a request from a first requesting entity for confirmation that the target token transaction is a valid token transaction;
on condition that the target token transaction is a valid token transaction,
transmitting a confirmation to the first requesting entity that the target token transaction is a valid token transaction;
transmitting one or more token blocks and/or respective block headers thereof to a second requesting entity, and
wherein said transmitting of the confirmation to the first requesting entity comprises
transmitting a Merkle path linking the target token transaction to the Merkle root stored in the block header of the current token block.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 21 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 26 recites:
wherein verifying that each token input of the target token transaction references a respective token output of a previously validated token transaction comprises
determining whether the referenced token output is present in the set of token outputs.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 26 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 27 recites:
on condition that the target token transaction is a valid token transaction,
storing the transaction identifier of the target transaction and the one or more token outputs of the target transaction in the set of token transaction identifiers and the set of token outputs respectively.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 27 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 28 recites:
constructing a current token block,
wherein the current token block comprises a token block header and a set of transaction identifiers of valid token transactions, including the target token transaction, and
wherein the token block header comprises a Merkle root calculated based on the set of transaction identifiers.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea, as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claim 28 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 5, 25, 35 recite:
wherein the minting data is one of: a minting public key associated with the token issuer; a knowledge proof produced by the token issuer; a symmetrically signed message signed by the token issuer, and a message encrypted by the token issuer.
wherein the validating entity maintains a sequence of previously constructed token blocks, and
wherein the validating entity stores: a set of token block headers of respective token blocks,
wherein each token block header comprises a respective Merkle root calculated based on a respective set of valid transactions stored in the respective token block; and a set of token transaction identifiers; a set of token outputs,
wherein each token output comprises a respective output index of one of the set of token transaction identifiers, a respective token amount.
wherein the cryptographic minting data comprises public information known to be associated with the minting of tokens.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the validating entity; the block header; the token output; the cryptographic minting – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“validating token transactions, i.e., blockchain transactions, with token outputs”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 5, 25, 35 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 16-19, 21, 25-28, 35, 44-45 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190172026 A1 Vessenes; Peter Joseph et al. CROSS BLOCKCHAIN SECURE TRANSACTIONS Disclosed are computing devices, systems, methods to operate a cross blockchain secure token transaction engine to identify a set of one or more tokens of a first blockchain, lock the identified set of the one or more tokens of the first blockchain, and generate, based upon the locked set of the one or more tokens, a set of one or more tokens of a second blockchain, where the set of one or more tokens of the second blockchain are to be subsequently converted to tokens of the first blockchain based upon the locked set of tokens of the first blockchain.
US 20200342316 A1 Shazeer; Noam M. et al. ATTENTION-BASED DECODER-ONLY SEQUENCE TRANSDUCTION NEURAL NETWORKS Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for generating an output sequence from an input sequence. One of the methods includes, at each of a plurality of generation time steps: generating a combined sequence for the generation time step that includes the input sequence followed by the output tokens that have already been generated as of the generation time step; processing the combined sequence using a self-attention decoder neural network to generate a time step output that defines a score distribution over a set of possible output tokens; and selecting, using the time step output, an output token from the set of possible output tokens as the next output token in the output sequence.
US 20200177389 A1 TSUCHIDA; Hikaru et al. ACCESS TOKEN SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM In IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service), when it is desirable to delegate the authority to a user outside a system, a recipient of an access token is designated, thereby preventing illegal distribution of the access token. There is provided an access token system including a generator and a verifier. The generator generates, using secret information of a recipient, a recipient-designated access token for which the recipient is designated, and provides the recipient-designated access token to a user. The verifier verifies that the user who makes access using the recipient-designated access token is the designated recipient.
US 20210035072 A1 Awasthi; Amitabh System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Conducting a Payment Transaction Involving Payment on Delivery Provided is a system for conducting a payment transaction involving payment on delivery in real-time. The system may include at least one processor programmed or configured to receive transaction data associated with a payment transaction involving a merchant and a customer at a location that is independent of a merchant location, determine a financial institution of a plurality of financial institutions based on the transaction data associated with the payment transaction, communicate data associated with a request for authorization of the payment transaction involving the merchant and the customer, receive an indication of authorization of the payment transaction involving the merchant and the customer, communicate data associated with authorization of the payment transaction involving the merchant and the customer. A method and computer program product are also provided.
US 20200213127 A1 Maniyar; Vidit et al. BLOCKCHAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM According to one or more aspects of the present disclosure, operations may include obtaining a token transaction request of a token transaction that includes a transfer of assignment of a crypto-token of a crypto-medium from a first entity to a second entity. The token transaction request may be a request to initiate the token transaction. The operations may further include generating a transaction signature in response to obtaining the token transaction request. The operations may include validating the token transaction using the digital signature and blocks of a private blockchain that includes a blockchain record of all transactions of the crypto-medium. In these or other embodiments, the operations may include generating a new block for the private blockchain, the new block including an update to the blockchain record that indicates the token transaction details. The generating of the new block may be triggered by the token transaction being validated.
US 20200265423 A1 Alves; Dino Dominique Rodrigues et al. SECURE INPUT USING TOKENS A system and method for secure input using tokens is provided. A computer-implemented method conducted at a server computer includes receiving a transaction confirmation request associated with a transaction. The method includes providing, to an end-user via an online platform, a plurality of user input options associated with the transaction. The method includes receiving, from the end-user via the online platform, a unique token associated with a selected user input option, the unique token having been obtained by the end-user inputting a selection of a user input option into an end-user token generator which is configured to generate the unique token uniquely specifying the selected user input option. The method includes validating the unique token and identifying the selected user input option with which the unique token is associated.
US 20180150836 A1 Kumar; Sharath L. et al. GENERATING TOKENS DYNAMICALLY USING PAYMENT KEYS Techniques are disclosed relating to generating tokens dynamically using payment keys. In some embodiments, a computer system may receive a transaction authorization request including a transaction token. The computer system may, in some embodiments, identify a transaction account number and a plurality of payment keys that were sent to a user device. Further, in some embodiments, the computer system may generate an authentication token that is usable to validate the transaction token.
US 20210365635 A1 Olabiyi; Oluwatobi et al. JOINT INTENT AND ENTITY RECOGNITION USING TRANSFORMER MODELS Systems described herein may use transformer-based machine classifiers to perform a variety of natural language understanding tasks including, but not limited to sentence classification, named entity recognition, sentence similarity, and question answering. The exceptional performance of transformer-based language models is due to their ability to capture long-term temporal dependencies in input sequences. Machine classifiers may be trained using training data sets for multiple tasks, such as but not limited to sentence classification tasks and sequence labeling tasks. Loss masking may be employed in the machine classifier to jointly train the machine classifier on multiple tasks simultaneously. The user of transformer encoders in the machine classifiers, which treat each output sequence independently of other output sequences, in accordance with aspects of the invention do not require joint labeling to model tasks.
US 20200366480 A1 Noonan; Willow W. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS WITH OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE The present invention overcomes problem of pseudonymous Blockchain transactions that preclude the identification of an individual or institutional identity that rely solely on a Blockchain address of a recipient in a Blockchain transaction. A system and method is provided that verifies transfers in an on-chain Blockchain Bitcoin transaction by using a sequence of Blockchain Bitcoin transactions that establish and confirm an identity of one or more parties to the transaction.
US 20210406758 A1 Ho; King Chung et al. DOUBLE-BARRELED QUESTION PREDICTOR AND CORRECTION A computer-implemented method includes gathering data samples into a data set, correcting for imbalance in the data set to produce a corrected data set by applying active learning to the data set to increase a number of double barreled question data samples occurring in the data set, selecting an optimal machine learning model for the corrected data set, training the optimal machine learning model using the corrected data set, operating the optimal machine learning model on new data to produce a prediction result, and generating a visual representation of at least one prediction results.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant submits that "generating a cryptographic signature by applying a digital signature algorithm to a predefined portion of the target token transaction together with a private key" cannot be considered a business relation.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined that the limitation, in concert with the other quoted limitations, is directed to business activity. The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has not determined that limitation per se represents business activity.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As submitted previously, the claimed invention has a technical advantage of enabling the target token transaction to be validated without tracing its entire history back to the token mint transaction. The original disclosure does identify the technical problem and does suggest how the claimed elements enable an improvement.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Validating token transactions is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In conclusion, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and, in any event, they do effect a technical improvement.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Amendment After Final – Pursuant to MPEP 2272 Applicant submits that the claim amendments in this after-final response should be entered as the amendments place the claims into condition for allowance by incorporating allowable subject matter into the independent claims. No further search or consideration is believed to be required.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant has filed amended claims and remarks on 2/17/2026. Applicant has also paid the RCE fees on 3/13/2026. Therefore, the RCE request has been entered and responded to herewith.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights