Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: linking a wallet address of a consumer to a loyalty account of the consumer / detecting a request to pay associated with the loyalty account for a transaction / providing a roundup amount to add to a transaction total for the transaction / confirming payment of the transaction total with the roundup amount in a fiat currency for the transaction/ obtaining a current fee associated with purchasing cryptocurrency / displays the roundup amount plus the current fee / performing threshold-based processing that does not interrupt the transaction with cryptocurrency savings workflow when a percentage for purchasing the cryptocurrency relative to the roundup amount exceeds a threshold percentage / rendering a cryptocurrency savings screen overlaid on top of a payment type screen/ wherein the causing further includes initiating a background workflow separate from a transaction workflow of the terminal that purchases the cryptocurrency and transfers the cryptocurrency to the wallet while the transaction workflow completes payment processing independently of the background workflow, and wherein the terminal produces two separate receipts comprising a transaction receipt with transaction details and no indication of cryptocurrency savings and a separate savings receipt with cryptocurrency savings details for privacy of the consumer. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “improves the technique by which a consumer can save a desired amount of cryptocurrency during each consumer’s fiat-based transaction at a transaction terminal”, “the techniques presented herein and below improves the technique by which a consumer can save a desired amount of cryptocurrency during each consumer's fiat-based transaction at a transaction terminal; funded by the consumer with fiat currency used as transaction payment for the transaction. A consumer registers and links a cryptocurrency wallet to their retailer-based loyalty account and designates a specific amount/percentage of fiat currency to add to their transaction total for savings as cryptocurrency in the consumer's wallet. During a transaction of the consumer, the consumer is asked to confirm the amount/percentage of cryptocurrency purchase into their wallet when the user selects payment on the transaction terminal to complete the transaction. Once confirmed, the transaction total price is discretely increased by the savings amount, the consumer pays, and the fiat currency amount is used to purchase the cryptocurrency into the consumer's wallet over the blockchain. In an embodiment, the terminal produces two separate receipts one with no indication of the consumer's savings and one with the savings noted for added privacy to the consumer. Furthermore, minimal enhancements are needed to the existing transaction workflows on the terminals to implement the consumer's savings”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a terminal including a display/savings screen/payment type screen, and purchasing cryptocurrency/transferring cryptocurrency over a blockchain (‘causing cryptocurrency to be purchased on behalf of the consumer using the roundup amount in the fiat currency and further causing the cryptocurrency to be transferred toa wallet associated with the wallet address over a blockchain’ / ‘transferring the cryptocurrency over the blockchain’). The terminal / screens represent generic computing elements. Purchasing cryptocurrency/transferring cryptocurrency over a blockchain do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Purchasing cryptocurrency/transferring cryptocurrency over a blockchain do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 is directed to a method for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 11 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 11 performs the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Claim 19 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 19 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: obtaining during the registering a profile of the consumer , wherein the profile comprises a roundup amount and receipt privacy instructions for printing one or more receipts associated with a transaction of the consumer / identifying the loyalty account being used during the transaction / providing the profile and the current fee to an agent/ renders a cryptocurrency savings screen overlaid on top of a payment type scree/ displays the roundup amount plus the current fee / performing threshold-based processing that does not interrupt the transaction with cryptocurrency savings overflow when a fee percentage for purchasing the corresponding cryptocurrency relative to the roundup amount exceeds a threshold percentage/ wherein the rendering of the cryptocurrency savings screen is performed without modifying the transaction manager and without modifying the payment type screen rendered, wherein the cryptocurrency savings screen provides cryptocurrency functionality through overlay technology that integrates blockchain-based cryptocurrency savings into existing terminal transaction workflows with minimal enhancements to the existing terminal transaction workflows, and wherein the causing further includes initiating a background workflow separate from a transaction workflow of the transaction manager that purchases the cryptocurrency and transfers the cryptocurrency to the blockchain wallet while the transaction workflow completes payment processing independently of the background workflow. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 19 includes the additional elements of a terminal including a display / transaction manager of the terminal/ savings screen and payment type screen / server comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium , registering a consumer for cryptocurrency (‘registering a consumer for cryptocurrency savings by linking a loyalty account of the consumer to a wallet identifier for a cryptocurrency wallet of the consumer’) / obtaining a current fee associated with purchasing cryptocurrency and transferring corresponding cryptocurrency over a blockchain to the cryptocurrency wallet / purchasing and transferring cryptocurrency to the wallet (‘causing the corresponding cryptocurrency to be purchased using a fiat currency in the roundup amount and transferred to the cryptocurrency wallet once a confirmation is received that the consumer paid for a transaction total associated with the transaction along with the roundup amount and the current fee in the fiat currency.’) The server / terminal including the transaction manager/screens represent generic computing elements. Registering a consumer for cryptocurrency/ obtaining a fee associated with purchasing cryptocurrency and transferring the cryptocurrency over a blockchain to the cryptocurrency wallet do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Registering a consumer for cryptocurrency/ obtaining a fee associated with purchasing cryptocurrency and transferring the cryptocurrency over a blockchain to the cryptocurrency wallet do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 19 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, 20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claim 1. The claims further recite the additional elements of a user operated device / user interface / servers / cloud independent of the system / cloud service /maintaining a ledger (claim 10). The device/user interface / servers represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Processing data within a cloud system / cloud service does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Maintaining a ledger (claim 10) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements , improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art: The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-20. The most relevant prior art of record identified, Carretta (2007033134) teaches detecting a request to pay associated with the loyalty account for a terminal transaction / providing a roundup amount to add to a transaction total for the transaction / payment of the transaction total with the roundup amount in a fiat currency for the transaction / providing a cryptocurrency amount of the cryptocurrency that can be purchased with the roundup amount using the fiat currency. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. Millius (20230385794) teaches using cryptocurrency to compete fiat currency purchases, including receiving by payment platform of cryptocurrency deposited by a user into a cryptocurrency account. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims and thus their respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
A. The Desjardins Framework Applies Directly to the Present Claims
In Desjardins, the Director reversed a PTAB panel's § 101 rejection of claims directed to training machine learning models. The Director's analysis focused on three key principles that are directly applicable here:
1. Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology: The Director
emphasized that "much of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." Desjardins at 8 (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
2. Claims must be evaluated as a whole, not at a high level of generality: The Director
criticized the PTAB for "evaluat[ing] claims at such a high level of generality" and
"substitut[ing] only a cursory analysis that ignored well-settled precedent." Desjardins at 9- 10.
3. Improvements to how computer systems operate are patent-eligible: The Director found
the claims patent-eligible because they reflected "an improvement to how the machine
learning model itself operates," specifically improvements that allowed the system to "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous
tasks." Desjardins at 9. Each of these principles applies with equal force to the present claims.
B. The Present Claims Recite Improvements to Terminal Transaction Processing Technology
Like the claims in Desjardins, the present claims recite specific improvements to how
computer systems-here, terminal transaction processing systems-operate. The amended claims now explicitly recite: 1. Background Workflow Processing: The claims recite "initiating a background workflow separate from a transaction workflow of the terminal that purchases the cryptocurrency and transfers the cryptocurrency to the wallet while the transaction workflow completes payment processing independently of the background workflow." This represents a specific architectural improvement to terminal processing systems that allows blockchain-based cryptocurrency transactions to be seamlessly integrated without disrupting or modifying the core transaction processing workflow.
Specification Support: "Furthermore, minimal enhancements are needed to the existing transaction workflows on the terminals to implement the consumer's savings." (Spec. [0022])
2. Overlay Technology for Integration: The claims recite "rendering of the cryptocurrency savings screen is performed without modifying the transaction manager and without modifying the payment type screen rendered by the transaction manager, wherein the cryptocurrency savings screen provides cryptocurrency functionality through overlay technology that integrates blockchain- based cryptocurrency savings into existing terminal transaction workflows with minimal enhancements." This overlay technology represents a specific technical solution to the problem of integrating new blockchain-based functionality into legacy terminal systems without requiring costly and disruptive modifications to existing transaction management systems. Specification Support: "agent 144 uses the profile to overlay a screen on top of the transaction interface screen for payment types" (Spec. [0046]); "System 100 integrates seamlessly and nearly transparently into the transaction workflow of a terminal 140." (Spec. [0082]) 3. Privacy-Preserving Receipt Technology: The claims recite "the terminal produces two separate receipts comprising a transaction receipt with transaction details and no indication of cryptocurrency savings and a separate savings receipt with cryptocurrency savings details for privacy of the consumer."
This represents a specific technical implementation that addresses the technical problem of providing transaction records while preserving user privacy-a significant concern in blockchain- based financial systems. Specification Support: "the terminal produces two separate receipts one with no indication of the consumer's savings and one with the savings noted for added privacy to the consumer." (Spec.[0022])
PNG
media_image1.png
16
8
media_image1.png
Greyscale
C. The Examiner's Analysis Improperly Evaluated the Claims at Too High a Level of Generality
The Examiner's rejection suffers from the same defect that the Director criticized
in Desjardins: evaluating the claims "at such a high level of generality" and characterizing the claims as directed to generic "commercial interactions" without properly considering the specific technological improvements recited in the claims. The Director in Desjardins expressly warned against this approach:
"Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality.
However, it is with this view that the panel's sua sponte action is most troubling, as it eschewed the clear teachings of Enfish, and instead substituted only a cursory analysis that ignored this well- settled precedent." Desjardins at 9-10. The Examiner's characterization of the present claims as directed to "commercial
interaction/fundamental economic practice" (Office Action, p. 2) commits precisely this error. The Examiner focused on the high-level business objective (consumer savings) while ignoring the specific technological improvements to terminal processing systems, blockchain integration, and transaction workflow architecture that the claims actually recite. Just as the Desjardins claims were not "directed to" machine learning in the abstract, but rather to specific improvements in how machine learning models operate, the present claims are not "directed to" commercial transactions in the abstract, but rather to specific improvements in how terminal transaction processing systems integrate blockchain-based cryptocurrency functionality. D. The Claims Integrate the Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong Two) Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims integrate any such exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The Director in Desjardins found integration into a practical application based on improvements to computer functionality: "We are persuaded that [the claimed limitation] constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation." Desjardins at 9. Similarly here, the amended claims recite specific improvements to how terminal transaction processing systems operate: 1. Architectural Improvement - Background Workflow Processing: The background workflow architecture allows terminals to process blockchain cryptocurrency
transactions without blocking or modifying the primary fiat currency transaction workflow.
This is a specific architectural improvement to terminal processing systems that enhances
functionality while maintaining backward compatibility with existing systems.
This is directly analogous to the improvement in Desjardins, where the machine
learning model could "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks." Desjardins at 9. Here, the terminal system can effectively process new
blockchain-based cryptocurrency transactions while protecting (i.e., not modifying or
disrupting) the existing fiat currency transaction processing. 2. Technical Integration Improvement - Overlay Technology: The overlay screen technology represents a specific technical solution for integrating new functionality into existing systems without requiring modifications to legacy code. This addresses the well- known technical problem in software engineering of integrating new features into legacy systems. 3. System Efficiency Improvement - Threshold-Based Processing: The threshold- based processing "that does not interrupt the transaction with cryptocurrency savings workflow when a fee percentage for purchasing the cryptocurrency relative to the roundup amount exceeds a threshold percentage" represents an improvement to system efficiency by preventing wasteful blockchain transactions when fees are excessive. These are not merely uses of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; they are improvements to how the computer systems themselves operate.
E. The Examiner's Generic Computer Components Analysis Is Inconsistent with Desjardins
The Examiner concluded that the additional elements "represent generic computing
elements; they are recited at a high level of generality." (Office Action, p. 4) However, the Director in Desjardins expressly rejected this type of analysis:
"Under a charitable view, the overbroad reasoning of the original panel below is perhaps understandable given the confusing nature of existing § 101 jurisprudence, but troubling, because this case highlights what is at stake. Categorically excluding Al innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology. Yet, under the panel's reasoning, many Al innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and nonobvious because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation." Desjardins at 9. The same concern applies here. The Examiner's approach of dismissing the claimed
improvements as merely "generic computing elements" without adequately explaining why the specific architectural improvements, overlay technology, and background workflow processing do not constitute improvements to computer functionality is inconsistent with Desjardins and Enfish.
The Director made clear that "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." Desjardins at 9. The claimed background workflow architecture, overlay technology for seamless integration, and privacy-preserving dual-receipt generation are not "generic"-they are specific technical solutions to specific technical problems in integrating blockchain cryptocurrency transactions into existing terminal transaction processing systems. III.THE CLAIMS RECITE SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS UNDER ENFISH The Federal Circuit in Enfish held that claims directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality are patent-eligible. 822 F.3d at 1336. The court explained:
"Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware
improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route. We thus see no reason to conclude that all claims directed to improvements in computer-related technology, including those directed to software, are abstract and necessarily analyzed at the second step of Alice." Id. at 1335. The present claims satisfy Enfish because they are directed to specific improvements in terminal transaction processing technology, not merely the use of computers to implement an abstract idea. A. The Claims Improve Terminal Transaction Processing Systems
The amended claims recite specific improvements to how terminals process transactions:
1. Non-Disruptive Integration: The background workflow processing allows
blockchain cryptocurrency transactions to be integrated into existing terminal systems
without modifying or disrupting the core transaction processing workflow. This solves the technical problem of adding new functionality to legacy systems without requiring costly
system redesigns. 2. Modular Architecture: The overlay screen technology implements a modular
architecture where new blockchain-based functionality can be added through an overlay
mechanism rather than modifying core system components. This represents a specific
architectural improvement that enhances system maintainability and upgradability.
3. Workflow Independence: By processing the cryptocurrency purchase and
blockchain transfer in a background workflow that operates "independently of" the main
transaction workflow, the system achieves improved fault tolerance and system reliability if the blockchain transaction encounters issues, the primary fiat transaction is unaffected.
While performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed and applied the current MPEP Guidance; the Examiner has also taken the Ex Parte Desjardins decision into consideration. The pending claims recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “improves the technique by which a consumer can save a desired amount of cryptocurrency during each consumer’s fiat-based transaction at a transaction terminal”, “the techniques presented herein and below improves the technique by which a consumer can save a desired amount of cryptocurrency during each consumer's fiat-based transaction at a transaction terminal; funded by the consumer with fiat currency used as transaction payment for the transaction. A consumer registers and links a cryptocurrency wallet to their retailer-based loyalty account and designates a specific amount/percentage of fiat currency to add to their transaction total for savings as cryptocurrency in the consumer's wallet. During a transaction of the consumer, the consumer is asked to confirm the amount/percentage of cryptocurrency purchase into their wallet when the user selects payment on the transaction terminal to complete the transaction. Once confirmed, the transaction total price is discretely increased by the savings amount, the consumer pays, and the fiat currency amount is used to purchase the cryptocurrency into the consumer's wallet over the blockchain. In an embodiment, the terminal produces two separate receipts one with no indication of the consumer's savings and one with the savings noted for added privacy to the consumer. Furthermore, minimal enhancements are needed to the existing transaction workflows on the terminals to implement the consumer's savings”. Purchasing and transferring cryptocurrency, as well as completing a transaction and providing separate, respective receipts represents a business practice goal/practice, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. The instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The instant claimed invention and Amdocs have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Amdocs, the Courts concluded that Amdocs's claimed invention solved a technological problem and improved the performance of the computing system itself. Contrary to Amdocs, the instant claimed invention, when implemented, does not effect a technical improvement. Additionally, there is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant’s Specifications of technical improvements to the functioning of the computing device itself, or technical improvements to another technology/technical field that would result from the instant claimed invention being implemented. Examiner notes that the 35 USC 101 analysis and the prior art analysis represent two separate and distinct analyses: as per MPEP 2106: “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions.” There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Spec., including the paras referenced above by the Applicant, that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
2/17/2026