DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on January 20, 2026 for application 18095160.
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-14 have been canceled.
Claims 15-24 are pending.
Claims 15-24 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that (1)Creighton fails to disclose at least "receiving, by the receiving device of the processing server, a transaction message from the issuing financial institution via a payment network, wherein the transaction message includes at least a single data element storing a transaction amount, a currency code, and an invoice identifier associated with a new electronic transaction, wherein the new electronic transaction is unsettled' and "in response to identifying a hash value stored on the blockchain matching the hash value generated by the processing server, settling, by the processing server, the new electronic transaction included in the received transaction message, wherein the settling of the new electronic transaction includes: deducting, by the transaction processing module of the processing server, a currency amount equal to the transaction amount included in the transaction message from a transaction account associated with a consumer of the electronic transaction" as recited in the presently amended claim 15.
After careful consideration and discussion with the Examiner’s SPE, Examiner respectfully disagrees as primarily, Creighton continues to discloses the limitation ""receiving, by the receiving device of the processing server, a transaction message from the issuing financial institution via a payment network, wherein the transaction message includes at least a single data element storing a transaction amount, a currency code, and an invoice identifier associated with a new electronic transaction, wherein the new electronic transaction is unsettled' and "in response to identifying a hash value stored on the blockchain matching the hash value generated by the processing server, settling, by the processing server, the new electronic transaction included in the received transaction message, wherein the settling of the new electronic transaction" as recited in the present independent claim 15. Creighton discloses the use of hash values in the blockchain to ensure the data is used for confirmation for settlement by transmitting clearing instructions to one or more appropriate clearing brokers and then the trade report and cryptographically- signed instructions can be bundled into an append-only, cryptographic, ledger which is an electronic record of the transaction as part of the settlement. But before a trade report is even generated, Column 5 lines 13-17 and 22-26 discloses a broker includes clearing instructions or a ("Signed Authorization") that are cryptographically- signed with each order ensuring the broker generated the order exactly matching the signature. Eventually a trade report is generated which is part of the settlement. Additionally, Column 5 lines 59- Col. 6 line 7 of Creighton discloses that a matching signature assures that a particular broker generated and authorized specific order instructions are processed and account updates are sent to appropriate custodians. The settlement further includes how the broker may wish to sell shares of a stock. The act of selling the shares is part of the settlement. Examiner believes that Creighton discloses that the blockchain and the hash values stored on the blockchain are for confirmed electronic transactions, which are then used to settle those electronic transactions in Column 16 lines 24-29 & lines 35-37 in which a block maker takes as input compressed batches of transactions with verified signatures and generates the Merkle Root of a block by running a cryptographic hash function on the data in the current block and the previous block's Merkle root”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingappa (US 11,055,707 B2) in view of Pirzadeh et al (US 2008/0288404 A1) in view of Witchey (US 2015/0332283 A1) and in further view of Creighton, IV et al. (US 11,410,233 B2)
Regarding Claims 15 and 20, Lingappa discloses a method for storing confirmations of electronic transactions using a blockchain, comprising:
storing, in a memory of a processing server, a blockchain, wherein the blockchain includes a plurality of blocks and, for each block of the plurality of blocks, a header and a plurality of transaction values where each transaction value of the plurality of transaction values is a hash value related to an electronic transaction (Col. 5 line 62-Col. 6 line 10, Col. 11 lines 35-44, Col. 12 lines 1-21) and
receiving, by a receiving device of the processing server from an issuing financial institution, a set of new hash values, wherein each new hash value is related to an additional electronic transaction approved by an issuing financial institution (Col. 12 lines 31-51, Col. 20 line 61-Col. 21 line 67) and
executing, by a querying module of the processing server, a query on the memory to identify a preceding block of the plurality of blocks included in the blockchain based on data stored in the header included in each respective block; (Col. 21 lines 30-67)
executing, by the querying module of the processing server, a query on the blockchain to identify a hash value stored on the blockchain matching the hash value generated by the processing server, the query including the hash value generated by the processing server; (Col. 21 lines 30-67)
deducting, by the transaction processing module of the processing server, a currency amount equal to the transaction amount included in the transaction message from a transaction account associated with a consumer of the electronic transaction (Col. 12 lines 22-30, Col. 13 lines 3-11, Col. 21 lines 30-38)
Lingappa does not disclose: generated based on at least a transaction amount, currency code, and invoice identifier associated with the related electronic transaction, wherein the electronic transaction is unsettled; and where each new hash value is generated based on application of one or more hashing algorithms to a transaction amount, currency code, and invoice identifier associated with the respective additional electronic transaction.
Pirzadeh however discloses:
generated based on at least a transaction amount, currency code, and invoice identifier associated with the related electronic transaction, wherein the electronic transaction is unsettled (¶0081, ¶0100).
where each new hash value is generated based on application of one or more hashing algorithms to a transaction amount, currency code, and invoice identifier associated with the respective additional electronic transaction (¶0081, ¶0100).
generating, by the generation module of the processing server, a hash value based on application of one or more hashing algorithms to the transaction amount, currency code, and an invoice identifier stored in the single data element included in the received transaction message; (¶0081, ¶0100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa to include generated based on at least a transaction amount, currency code, and invoice identifier associated with the related electronic transaction and where each new hash value is generated based on application of one or more hashing algorithms to a transaction amount, currency code, and invoice identifier associated with the respective additional electronic transaction, as disclosed in Pirzadeh, in order to provide a system for authenticating the identity and profile data of an individual during a transaction (see Pirzadeh ¶0007).
The combination of Lingappa and Pirzadeh does not disclose: generating, by a generation module of the processing server, a proof of work value based on performing one or more predetermined actions and generating, by the generation module of the processing server, a new block, wherein the new block includes at least a new header and the set of new hash values, and wherein the new header includes at least a reference to the identified preceding block and the generated proof of work value; and electronically transmitting, by a transmitting device of the processing server, the generated new block to one or more computing devices associated with the blockchain.
Witchey however discloses:
generating, by a generation module of the processing server, a proof of work value based on performing one or more predetermined actions and (¶0040, ¶0041, ¶0059, ¶0064)
generating, by the generation module of the processing server, a new block, wherein the new block includes at least a new header and the set of new hash values, and wherein the new header includes at least a reference to the identified preceding block and the generated proof of work value; and (¶0040, (¶0055)
electronically transmitting, by a transmitting device of the processing server, the generated new block to one or more computing devices associated with the blockchain (¶0059, ¶0061)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa and Pirzadeh to include generating, by a generation module of the processing server, a proof of work value based on performing one or more predetermined actions, as disclosed in Witchey, in order to provide a proof-of-work system which can be employed to track or validate transactions (see Witchey ¶0018).
The combination of Lingappa, Pirzadeh and Witchey does not disclose: receiving, by the receiving device of the processing server, a transaction message from the issuing financial institution via a payment network, wherein the transaction message includes at least a single data element [storing a transaction amount, a currency code, and an invoice identifier] associated with a new electronic transaction and in response to identifying a hash value stored on the blockchain matching the hash value generated by the processing server, transmitting, by the transmitting device of the processing server, a currency amount equal to the transaction amount included in the return message to a transaction account associated with the electronic transaction.
Creighton however discloses:
receiving, by the receiving device of the processing server, a transaction message from the issuing financial institution, wherein the transaction message includes at least a single data element […] associated with a new electronic transaction and (Col. 1 lines 55- Col. 2 line 8, Col. 3 lines 8-10, Col. 5 lines 22-26)
in response to identifying a hash value stored on the blockchain matching the hash value generated by the processing server, settling, by a transaction processing module of the processing server, the new electronic transaction included in the received transaction message, wherein the settling of the new electronic transaction includes (Col. 5 lines 11-48, Col. 9 lines 10-63, Col. 11 lines 28-46, Col. 13 lines 1-33, Col. 16 lines 24-29 & lines 35-37 “A block maker takes as input compressed batches of transactions with verified signatures and generates the Merkle Root of a
block by running a cryptographic hash function on the data
in the current block and the previous block's Merkle root”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa, Pirzadeh and Witchey to include receiving, by the receiving device of the processing server, a transaction message from the issuing financial institution via a payment network, wherein the transaction message includes at least a single data element […] associated with a new electronic transaction, as disclosed in Creighton, in order to provide a process by which securities are bought, sold, and delivered such as a settlement process by using cryptographic hashes to enable real-time gross settlement of trades (see Creighton Col. 1 lines 45-49).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Lingappa, Pirzadeh, Witchey and Creighton discloses the invention as above.
Witchey further discloses: wherein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a time value, and identifying the preceding block includes identifying a block where the time value included in the included header is most recent to a present time (¶0037, ¶0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa to include wherein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a time value, and identifying the preceding block includes identifying a block where the time value included in the included header is most recent to a present time, as disclosed in Witchey, in order to provide a proof-of-work system which can be employed to track or validate transactions (see Witchey ¶0018).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination Lingappa, Pirzadeh, Witchey and Creighton discloses the invention as above.
Witchey further discloses: herein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a reference identifier, and the reference to the identified preceding block included in the new header corresponds to the reference identifier included in the header included in the identified preceding block (¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa to include herein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a reference identifier, and the reference to the identified preceding block included in the new header corresponds to the reference identifier included in the header included in the identified preceding block, as disclosed in Witchey, in order to provide a proof-of-work system which can be employed to track or validate transactions (see Witchey ¶0018).
Regarding Claim 18, Lingappa discloses wherein the one or more predetermined actions includes solving for a complex mathematical problem (Col. 18 lines 35-54).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Lingappa, Pirzadeh, Witchey and Creighton discloses the invention as above.
Witchey further discloses: wherein a difficulty of the complex mathematical problem is set by the one or more computing devices associated with the blockchain (¶0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa to include wherein a difficulty of the complex mathematical problem is set by the one or more computing devices associated with the blockchain, as disclosed in Witchey, in order to provide a proof-of-work system which can be employed to track or validate transactions (see Witchey ¶0018).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Lingappa, Pirzadeh, Witchey and Creighton discloses the invention as above.
Witchey further discloses: wherein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a time value, and identifying the preceding block includes identifying a block where the time value included in the included header is most recent to a present time (¶0037, ¶0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa to include wherein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a time value, and identifying the preceding block includes identifying a block where the time value included in the included header is most recent to a present time, as disclosed in Witchey, in order to provide a proof-of-work system which can be employed to track or validate transactions (see Witchey ¶0018).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Lingappa, Pirzadeh, Witchey and Creighton discloses the invention as above.
Witchey further discloses: wherein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a reference identifier, and the reference to the identified preceding block included in the new header corresponds to the reference identifier included in the header included in the identified preceding block (¶0044, claim 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa to include wherein the header included in each block of the plurality of blocks includes a reference identifier, and the reference to the identified preceding block included in the new header corresponds to the reference identifier included in the header included in the identified preceding block, as disclosed in Witchey, in order to provide a proof-of-work system which can be employed to track or validate transactions (see Witchey ¶0018).
Regarding Claim 23, Lingappa discloses wherein the one or more predetermined actions includes solving for a complex mathematical problem (Col. 19 lines 9-12, Col 19 lines 64-67)
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Lingappa, Pirzadeh, Witchey and Creighton discloses the invention as above.
Witchey further discloses: wherein a difficulty of the complex mathematical problem is set by the one or more computing devices associated with the blockchain (¶0048, ¶0049, claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lingappa to include wherein a difficulty of the complex mathematical problem is set by the one or more computing devices associated with the blockchain, as disclosed in Witchey, in order to provide a proof-of-work system which can be employed to track or validate transactions (see Witchey ¶0018).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
von Mueller et al. (US 8,769,275 B2): (Fig. 18 and Fig. 20; Col. 5 lines 8-34, Col. 41 lines 28-Col. 42 line 4, Col. 42 line 51-Col. 43 line 18)
Wilson, JR. et al. (US 2017/0103391 A1): (¶0041, ¶0043, ¶0044 (accepted transactions))
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W 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.
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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights