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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 5/19/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 11 recites the limitation of “independently and concurrently such that a failure or delay in the background workflow processing the blockchain-based cryptocurrency transfer does not affect, disrupt, or modify the completion of the transaction workflow processing the fiat currency payment.” The only relevant reference in the Spec. that has been identified by the Examiner is in para 76: “In an embodiment, at 260, the crypto savings manager is processed or performs 210-250 on a server 130 associated with a loyalty system 134 or on a cloud 110 independent of loyalty system 134.” The Spec. does not describe the claimed limitation above in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Independent Claim 19 recites the limitation of “wherein the agent is further configured to maintain fault isolation between the background workflow and the transaction workflow such that the transaction manager completes fiat currency payment processing for the transaction independently of and unaware of the background workflow processing the blockchain-based cryptocurrency transfer.” The only relevant reference in the Spec. that has been identified by the Examiner is in para 76: “In an embodiment, at 260, the crypto savings manager is processed or performs 210-250 on a server 130 associated with a loyalty system 134 or on a cloud 110 independent of loyalty system 134.” The Spec. does not describe the claimed limitation above in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Independent claims 1, 11, 19 recite the limitation of integrating blockchain-based cryptocurrency savings into existing terminal transaction workflows “with minimal enhancements to the existing terminal transaction workflows”; the Spec. fails to disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. The only relevant reference identified in the Spec. by the Examiner is in para 13: “Furthermore, minimal enhancements are needed to the existing transaction workflows on the terminals to implement the consumer's savings.” As per MPEP 2161.01: “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may “express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding “whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved”). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” Appropriate correction is required.
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/ operating an overlay of the cryptocurrency savings screen without modifying the transaction workflow of the terminal and without modifying the payment type screen rendered by the terminal, such that blockchain-based cryptocurrency savings are integrated into existing terminal transaction workflows with minimal enhancements to the existing terminal transaction workflows (Applicant’s Spec. describes the independent processes in para 76 as: “In an embodiment, at 260, the crypto savings manager is processed or performs 210-250 on a server 130 associated with a loyalty system 134 or on a cloud 110 independent of loyalty system 134.”) 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/ wherein the agent is further configured to maintain fault isolation between the background workflow and the transaction workflow such that the transaction manager completes fiat currency payment processing for the transaction independently of and unaware of the background workflow processing the blockchain-based cryptocurrency transfer (Applicant’s Spec. describes the independent processes in para 76 as: “In an embodiment, at 260, the crypto savings manager is processed or performs 210-250 on a server 130 associated with a loyalty system 134 or on a cloud 110 independent of loyalty system 134.”). 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:
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, sitting as the Appeals Review Panel (ARP), issued a precedential decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024- 000567 (ARP Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential), vacating a PTAB panel's new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Desjardins decision is binding on Examiners and panels of the USPTO. The Director held that the claims at issue - directed to training machine learning models - were not directed to an abstract idea because they reflected an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates. Desjardins at 9. The Director expressly warned that "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." Desjardins at 9. Importantly, the Director in Desjardins also emphasized the foundational principle from Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 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," and that "software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can." Desjardins at 8 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339). The Director further condemned the approach of dismissing additional claim elements as "generic computer components" without adequate explanation, finding such an approach inconsistent with controlling precedent. Desjardins at 9.
These principles were subsequently applied and affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board in Exparte Kelley, Appeal 2026-000066 (PTAB Apr. 1, 2026). In Kelley, the Board reversed a § 101 rejection of claims directed to training machine learning algorithms using linear proxy constraints in place of non-linear constraints. The Board, expressly applying Desjardins, determined that the claims reflected a specific improvement to how the machine learning model operates - reducing computationally intensive processing overhead - and that this improvement was reflected in the claim language and supported by the specification. Kelley at 9-10. The Board held that the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, rendering the claims patent eligible. Kelley at 10.
The present claims are directly analogous to those found patent eligible in Desjardins and Kelley. As detailed below, the amended claims recite specific improvements to how terminal transaction processing systems operate - not merely the use of a computer to carry out a commercial transaction.
B. Step 2A, Prong One: Even Assuming an Abstract Idea Is Recited, the Analysis Must Proceed to Prong Two
Applicant does not concede that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. However, even assuming arguendo that certain elements of the claims recite an abstract idea, the § 101 analysis must proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether the claims as a whole integrate any such exception into a practical application. The Examiner characterized the claims as directed to the abstract concept of a "commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice." Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization evaluates the claims at an impermissibly high level of generality, precisely the error condemned by the Director in Desjardins: "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." Desjardins at 9. Just as the Director found that the Desjardins claims
were not directed to machine learning in the abstract - but rather to a specific improvement in how the machine learning model operates - 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 while maintaining the integrity and independence of existing transaction workflows.
C. Step 2A, Prong Two: The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a
Practical Application Through Specific Technical Improvements to Terminal Transaction Processing Systems
The amended claims recite at least the following distinct technical improvements, each of which is reflected in the claim language and supported by the specification.
1. Non-Disruptive Overlay Integration: Rendering a Savings Screen Without Modifying the Existing Transaction Manager or Payment Type Screen
Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 - as amended - each recite operating the cryptocurrency savings screen overlay without modifying the transaction workflow of the terminal and without modifying the payment type screen rendered by the terminal, such that blockchain-based cryptocurrency savings are integrated into existing terminal transaction workflows with minimal enhancements to the existing terminal transaction workflows. This is a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem: how to integrate new blockchain-based cryptocurrency functionality into legacy point-of-sale terminal systems without requiring costly and disruptive modifications to existing, deployed transaction management software. The specification confirms this technical solution and its technical significance: "The transaction interface rendered by manager 143 is not modified or changed with the teachings herein; rather agent 144 detects when screen 143A has been rendered on a display of terminal 140 during the transaction." The specification further states: "System 100 integrates seamlessly and nearly transparently into the transaction workflow of a terminal 140." And: "Furthermore, minimal enhancements are needed to the existing transaction workflows on the terminals to implement the consumer's savings." This is directly analogous to the improvement found patent eligible in Desjardins, where the claimed subject matter provided a technical improvement by "addressing challenges in continual learning and model efficiency." Desjardins at 7. Just as the Desjardins claims solved the technical problem of catastrophic forgetting in machine learning systems without requiring replacement of the existing model, the present claims solve the technical problem of integrating new blockchain functionality into legacy terminal systems without requiring replacement or modification of the existing transaction manager. In both cases, the improvement is reflected in the specific claim language, not merely asserted in the specification. See Desjardins at 9 ("we are persuaded that the claims reflect such an improvement"). The Board in Kelley confirmed this analytical framework, finding that where the
specification identifies a technical problem and the claims reflect the technical solution, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Kelley at 9-10. Here, both the specification and the amended claim language expressly reflect the technical improvement. 2. Independent and Concurrent Background Workflow Architecture Independent claims 1 and 11 - as amended - each recite executing the background workflow and the transaction workflow independently and concurrently such that a failure or delay in the background workflow processing the blockchain-based cryptocurrency transfer does not affect, disrupt, or modify the completion of the transaction workflow processing the fiat currency payment. Independent claim 19 recites that the agent is further configured to maintain fault isolation between the background workflow and the transaction workflow such that the transaction manager completes fiat currency payment processing for the transaction independently of and unaware of the background workflow processing the blockchain-based cryptocurrency transfer. This is a specific architectural improvement to the terminal transaction processing system. The background workflow architecture achieves improved fault tolerance and system reliability: if the blockchain transaction encounters issues, the primary fiat transaction is unaffected. This is not the abstract idea of conducting a commercial transaction - it is a specific technical solution to the technical problem of integrating asynchronous, potentially latency-prone blockchain operations into synchronous, real-time point-of-sale transaction systems without degrading the reliability or performance of the primary payment workflow.
The specification confirms this architecture and its technical significance: "The transaction terminal 140 handles fiat currency for the transaction and is completely unaware of the subsequent crypto savings transaction that occurs over the BC through system 100." The specification further confirms that the background workflow operates simultaneously with and independently of the transaction workflow: "Simultaneous to this purchase of the crypto into the user's wallet, transaction manager 143 identifies the fiat currency amount and the BC fee as a special fee." This improvement is analogous to the improvement found patent eligible in Kelley, where the claims recited a specific architectural approach - replacing non-linear constraints with linear proxy constraints - that reduced computational overhead and improved the operation of the machine learning system itself. Kelley at 9. Just as the Kelley claims improved the operation of the machine learning algorithm, the present claims improve the operation of the terminal transaction processing system by enabling fault-isolated, concurrent processing of blockchain and fiat currency workflows.
3. Threshold-Based Processing That Improves System Efficiency
Each independent claim recites performing 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. This is a specific technical mechanism that improves system efficiency by preventing the initiation of blockchain transactions that would be economically irrational and computationally wasteful. The specification confirms: "savings manager 116 and/or agent 144 is configured to not interrupt any transaction with crypto savings workflow when a fee percentage for purchasing the crypto relative to the roundup amount exceeds a threshold percentage. For example, when the current fee for purchasing crypto in a given transaction exceeds the roundup amount by more than 25%, then agent 144 does not attempt to obtain consent from the consumer to purchase crypto." This threshold-based logic is not a fundamental economic practice - it is a specific computational mechanism for governing the invocation of blockchain transaction workflows, improving the efficiency and resource utilization of the overall system.
Claims 1 and 19 recite that the terminal produces two separate receipts: 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 is a specific technical implementation that addresses a distinct technical problem in blockchain-based financial systems: preserving user privacy while maintaining complete and accurate transaction records. The specification confirms: "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."
D. The Examiner's Analysis Evaluates the Claims at an Impermissibly High Level of Generality
The Examiner concluded that the additional elements in the claims "represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality," and that purchasing and transferring cryptocurrency "do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment." Office Action at 4. With respect, this analysis commits precisely the error condemned by the Director in Desjardins: dismissing additional claim elements as "generic computer components" without adequately explaining why the specific architectural improvements, overlay technology, background workflow processing, and threshold-based processing do not constitute improvements to computer or terminal transaction processing technology. Desjardins at 9 ("the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation"). The Examiner's characterization also improperly focuses on the high-level business objective - consumer cryptocurrency savings - while ignoring the specific technical elements recited in the claims that solve specific technical problems in terminal transaction processing system architecture. The Examiner's response to Applicant's prior arguments acknowledged Desjardins but dismissed the claims by recharacterizing them as pertaining to "a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field." Office Action at 15. This characterization is incorrect. The improvements recited in the claims - non-disruptive overlay integration, fault- isolated concurrent workflow architecture, threshold-based blockchain transaction control, and privacy-preserving receipt generation - are improvements to the operation of terminal transaction processing systems, not merely optimizations of a business goal. The Examiner further stated that "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." Office Action at 15. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As demonstrated above, the specification expressly identifies and describes each of these technical improvements, and the amended claim language expressly reflects these improvements. This is precisely the showing that Desjardins and Kelley found sufficient: the specification identifies the improvement, and the improvement is reflected in the claim language. Desjardins at 9; Kelley at 9-10. E. The Claims Are More Analogous to Desjardins and Kelley Than to Cases of Ineligibility The Examiner cited no case in which claims reciting specific non-disruptive overlay integration architecture, fault-isolated concurrent workflow processing, and threshold-based computational control over blockchain transaction invocation were found patent ineligible. The Examiner's comparison to Enfish and Amdocs was made in the context of distinguishing those cases, but the controlling standard articulated in those cases - whether the claims are directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself - supports eligibility here. The amended claims reflect improvements to how terminal transaction processing systems operate: the overlay architecture improves integration modularity; the background workflow architecture improves fault tolerance and concurrent processing capability; and the threshold-based processing improves system efficiency. These are improvements to the terminal transaction processing system itself, not merely uses of a generic computer to implement an abstract commercial transaction. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20, as amended, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and requests that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn in its entirety. The amended independent claims 1, 11, and 19 recite specific technical improvements to terminal transaction processing systems that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO's eligibility framework, consistent with Ex parte Desjardins and Ex parte Kelley. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and allow claims 1-20.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained; Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. 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 Specification 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. Applicant cites to a PTAB case which is neither binding nor persuasive. 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights