DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to claims filed 01/08/2026 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 18/144353 filed 01/08/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined with this office action.
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 an abstract idea of reconciliation of a plurality of trades without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system (reconciliation analysis engine), and independent claim 11 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method and independent claim 20 all claims which depend from it are directed toward one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instruction to perform functions/steps. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “An anomaly detection and reconciliation mesh analysis engine comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the anomaly detection and reconciliation mesh analysis engine to: receive a request for a user interface from a user device; generate a first user interface in response to receiving the request; send the first user interface to the user device, wherein the sending the first user interface to the user device causes the user device to output the first user interface for display on a display device associated with the user device; receive, from the user device, one or more anomaly analysis configuration parameters, wherein the one or more anomaly analysis configuration parameters comprise at least trade metadata; generate first tokenized trade metadata for a first trade metadata of the trade metadata, wherein generating the first tokenized trade metadata for the first trade metadata includes replacing sensitive data in the first trade metadata with a randomized data string; generate second tokenized trade metadata for a second trade metadata of the trade metadata, wherein generating the second tokenized trade metadata for the second trade metadata includes replacing sensitive data in the second trade metadata with a randomized data string; generate, using the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata, tokenized trade digital DNA, wherein generating the tokenized trade digital DNA includes: analyzing the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata to identify a trade identification number associated with each of the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; grouping, based on the identified trade identification number, all tokenized trade metadata of the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata having a same trade identification number; identifying one or more trade system markers associated with a trade system of a trade system identification number associated with the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; and algorithmically combining the identified one or more trade system markers with the grouped trade metadata having the same trade identification number to generate a strand of the tokenized trade digital DNA; generate hashed data by hashing the strand of the tokenized trade digital DNA that comprises the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; determine whether there are any anomalies in the hashed data by comparing the hashed data; and perform decentralized reconciliation mesh analysis on the hashed data by inputting the hashed data into a decentralized reconciliation mesh”.
Claim 11 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A method comprising: at an anomaly detection and reconciliation mesh analysis engine comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory: receiving a request for a user interface from a user device; generating a first user interface in response to receiving the request; sending the first user interface to the user device, wherein the sending the first user interface to the user device causes the user device to output the first user interface for display on a display device associated with the user device; receiving, from the user device, one or more anomaly analysis configuration parameters, wherein the one or more anomaly analysis configuration parameters comprise at least trade metadata; generating first tokenized trade metadata for a first trade metadata of the trade metadata, wherein generating the first tokenized trade metadata for the first trade metadata includes replacing sensitive data in the first trade metadata with a randomized data string; generating second tokenized trade metadata for a second trade metadata of the trade metadata, wherein generating the second tokenized trade metadata for the second trade metadata includes replacing sensitive data in the second trade metadata with a randomized data string; generating, using the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata, tokenized trade digital DNA, wherein generating the tokenized trade digital DNA includes: analyzing the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata to identify a trade identification number associated with each of the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; grouping, based on the identified trade identification number, all tokenized trade metadata of the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata having a same trade identification number; identifying one or more trade system markers associated with a trade system of a trade system identification number associated with the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; and algorithmically combining the identified one or more trade system markers with the grouped trade metadata having the same trade identification number to generate a strand of the tokenized trade digital DNA; generating hashed data by hashing the strand of the tokenized trade digital DNA that comprises the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; determining whether there are any anomalies in the hashed data by comparing the hashed data; and performing decentralized reconciliation mesh analysis on the hashed data by inputting the hashed data into a decentralized reconciliation mesh”.
Claim 20 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by an anomaly detection and reconciliation mesh analysis engine comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory, cause the anomaly detection and reconciliation mesh analysis engine to: receive a request for a user interface from a user device; generate a first user interface in response to receiving the request; send the first user interface to the user device, wherein the sending the first user interface to the user device causes the user device to output the first user interface for display on a display device associated with the user device; receive, from the user device, one or more anomaly analysis configuration parameters, wherein the one or more anomaly analysis configuration parameters comprise at least trade metadata; generate first tokenized trade metadata for a first trade metadata of the trade metadata wherein generating the first tokenized trade metadata for the first trade metadata includes replacing sensitive data in the first trade metadata with a randomized data string; generate second tokenized trade metadata for a second trade metadata of the trade metadata, wherein generating the second tokenized trade metadata for the second trade metadata includes replacing sensitive data in the second trade metadata with a randomized data string; generate, using the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata, tokenized trade digital DNA, wherein generating the tokenized trade digital DNA includes: analyzing the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata to identify a trade identification number associated with each of the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; grouping, based on the identified trade identification number, all tokenized trade metadata of the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata having a same trade identification number; identifying one or more trade system markers associated with a trade system of a trade system identification number associated with the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; and algorithmically combining the identified one or more trade system markers with the grouped trade metadata having the same trade identification number to generate a strand of the tokenized trade digital DNA; generate hashed data by hashing the strand of the tokenized trade digital DNA that comprises the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata; determine whether there are any anomalies in the hashed data by comparing the hashed data; and perform decentralized reconciliation mesh analysis on the hashed data by inputting the hashed data into a decentralized reconciliation mesh”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Reconciliation of a plurality of trades is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: at least one processor; a communication interface; memory storing computer-readable instructions; receive a request for a user interface from a user device; generate a first user interface in response to receiving the request; send the first user interface to the user device, wherein the sending the first user interface to the user device causes the user device to output the first user interface for display on a display device associated with the user device; generate first tokenized trade metadata; generate second tokenized trade metadata; tokenized trade digital DNA; hashed data; one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions. However, the specification description of the additional elements at least one processor ([0041-0044] [0077]); a communication interface ([0041-0044] [0077]); memory storing computer-readable instructions ([0041-0044] [0077]); receive a request for a user interface from a user device ([0015] [0019] [0023] [0045] “… various user interfaces that may be sent to user devices such as user device 160 and/or user device 170 to report results of anomaly analysis and/or to configure anomaly analysis requests…”); generate a first user interface in response to receiving the request ([0015] [0019] [0023] [0045] “… various user interfaces that may be sent to user devices such as user device 160 and/or user device 170 to report results of anomaly analysis and/or to configure anomaly analysis requests…”); send the first user interface to the user device, wherein the sending the first user interface to the user device causes the user device to output the first user interface for display on a display device associated with the user device ([0015] [0019] [0023] [0045] “… various user interfaces that may be sent to user devices such as user device 160 and/or user device 170 to report results of anomaly analysis and/or to configure anomaly analysis requests…”); generate first tokenized trade metadata ([0045] [0054]); generate second tokenized trade metadata ([0045] [0054]); tokenized trade digital DNA ([0032-0033] [0045]); hashed data ([0056]); one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions ([0014] [0023]); are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do 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 an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. The claimed invention appears to claim a distributed ledger consensus process which Jackson (PGPub Document No. 20230205849) teaches ([Figures 1 and 3]). The present set of claims additionally contains the claim limitation “generate hashed data by hashing a first strand of the tokenized trade digital DNA that comprises the first tokenized trade metadata and the second tokenized trade metadata;” which Jackson doesn’t teach. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The examiner maintains that reconciliation of a plurality of trades is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The amended claims add content of what is contained in metadata and what is tokenized/hashed. However, the amended claims describing aspects of the trade reconciliation are part of the abstract idea of the claims and not a technical solution to a problem. There is no improvement to tokenization, metadata, or hashing technology recited in the claims. Regarding applicant’s argument directed toward paragraphs [0032-0034] of the present applications, these paragraphs described a business solution (centralized reconciliations of trades) to a business problem (reconciliation of trade data on multiple trading platforms). The additional elements of the claimed invention, even when considered in combination, are merely applied to the abstract idea of the claim. Again, there is no improvement to the additional elements addressed under Step 2A, Prong 2. Thus, unlike Bascom which claimed a technical improvement, the present claimed invention merely applied a technological environment to an abstract idea.
Regarding applicant's arguments alleging the claim(s) do not preempt or monopolize the abstract idea, while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. The Supreme Court in Alice Corp. cautioned that merely limiting the use of an abstract idea "to a particular technological environment" or implementing the abstract idea on a "wholly generic computer" is not sufficient as an additional feature to provide "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself." Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (citations omitted). In the present case, the claimed technology is nothing more than generic computer technology implementing an abstract idea. As such, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
For prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure see Notice of References Cited item A submitted 10/15/2025 used as prior art and in the conclusion section in the office action submitted 10/15/2025.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
02/07/2026