DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 29, and 37 have been amended.
Claims 21-22, 24-30, 32-38, and 40-43 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been deemed to be persuasive. The examiner asserts that the claims as amended do not remedy the issues outlined in the final rejection mailed 30 December 2025.
The newly amended claims add the additional limitation reciting: “wherein each peer network node stores a separate copy of the point-to-point distributed ledger”. When considering the BRI of the claims, the examiner has determined that the claimed “one or more network nodes” described by the aforementioned limitation cannot be considered to be contained within the scope of the invention as there is no clear functional limit said limitation imposes on any of the claimed method steps. Thus, any benefit purported by applicant to be provided by the recitation of said limitation cannot be considered an improvement to the claimed invention itself as any perceived benefit would only be applied outside the scope of the claimed invention. As all the recited method steps are claimed as being performed by the one or more processors and the aforementioned limitation does not purport to improve the functioning of any of said processors, the limitation cannot be considered to integrate the amended claims into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Additionally, the newly amended claims recite: “detecting discrepancies in the point-to-point distributed ledger by checking the hashes of states of the one or more identical copies against hashes of states of copies from other peer network nodes to ensure the transaction data has not been altered and to guarantee uniqueness of the transaction data.” The examiner asserts that even if one did not consider it a recitation of an abstract idea, a position which the examiner maintains, said limitations would additionally merely amount to generally linking the use of the recited judicial exception to the particular technological field of blockchain technology as the use of hash comparison between blocks in a blockchain constitute fundamental operating procedure in any generic blockchain system.
Thus, the examiner must maintain the previously issued 101 Rejection.
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 21-22, 24-30, 32-38, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 21-28 and 41-43 are directed to a method, claims 29-30 and 32-36 are directed to an system/apparatus, and claims 37-39 and 40 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 21 recites the following:
A computer-implemented method for executing a distributed electronic transaction, comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, a first transaction request from a first merchant system, wherein the first transaction request includes an exchange request to convert a first message associated with a first currency into one or more first tokens for transaction settlement with a second merchant system, and wherein the first transaction request includes a distributed settlement agreement between the first merchant system and the second merchant system;
storing, via the one or more processors, a first transaction amount and associated order based on the first transaction request in a distributed ledger, wherein the first transaction amount and the associated order are stored separately in distinct chains within the distributed ledger;
anonymizing, via the one or more processors, the first transaction amount and the associated order using a point-to-point distributed ledger that establishes direct communication channels between the first merchant system and the second merchant system, wherein the direct communication channels are controlled through permission settings that restrict visibility to the first merchant system and the second merchant system
authenticating, via the one or more processors, the one or more first tokens based on the first transaction request;
generating, via the one or more processors, the one or more first tokens based on the first transaction request;
transmitting, via the one or more processors, the one or more first tokens to the second merchant system for the transaction settlement; and
comparing, via the one or more processors, transaction data between the first merchant system and the second merchant system to generate a timestamp and a unique hash that define the transaction data and render the transaction data immutable; and
storing, via the one or more processors, the transaction data associated with the first transaction request with the generated timestamp and the unique hash in the point-to-point distributed ledger upon successful transmission of the one or more first tokens to the second merchant system.
synchronizinq, via the one or more processors, one or more identical copies of the point-to-point distributed ledqer with associated timestamps and hashes across one or more peer network nodes of the point-to-point distributed ledqer, wherein each peer network node stores a separate copy of the point-to-point distributed ledger, and
detectinq discrepancies in the point-to-point distributed ledqer by checking the hashes of states of the one or more identical copies against hashes of states of copies from other peer network nodes to ensure the transaction data has not been altered and to guarantee uniqueness of the transaction data.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing an economic transaction. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite performing an economic transaction in form of currency exchange which is grouped within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of performing an economic transaction in the form of an exchange of one currency for another. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “one or more processors”, a “distributed ledger”, “network node” and a “computer” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “one or more processors”, “distributed ledger”, “network node” and “computer” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “one or more processors”, a “distributed ledger”, “network node” and a “computer” amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “one or more processors”, “distributed ledger”, “network node” and “computer” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the process of exchanging currency simply applied to the technical field of distributed ledger technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22, 24-28, 30, 32-36, 38, and 40-43 further describe the abstract idea of risk mitigation. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claims 22, 30, 38 merely further describes the distributed ledger which is used to implement the recited abstract idea.
Claims 27, 31, 35, and 39 merely further describe the data which is used to facilitate the performance of the currency exchange.
Claims 24 and 32 merely further describe the currency that is being exchanged in the recited process of currency exchange.
Claims 25-26, 28, 33-34, 36 and 40-43 merely further recites steps necessary to perform the recited abstract ideas of performing an economic transaction in the form of currency exchange using a distributed ledger computer system.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stein (WO 2019239086 A1) generally discloses a computer-implemented method of generating a token for use in a transaction.
Zhou et al. (US 20220284428 A1) generally discloses methods and systems for facilitating payment comprising the exchange of digital tokens from consumer accounts to merchant accounts in exchange for goods and/or services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights