DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on September 9, 2026.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention is not a commercial or legal interaction. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention is clearly directed towards executing an overdraft transaction and recording the transaction on a blockchain. This is a commercial interaction. The fact that encryption technology is used does not change the fundamental nature of the commercial transaction claimed. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and is directed to an improvement to the technical field associated with encryption and tracing techniques for transactions. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations of a computer and a computer program product are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Encryption and tracing techniques are not improved by the claimed invention because Applicant has not shown that any technological limitations in encryption or tracing techniques were overcome by the claimed invention. The underlying ledger technology is also not improved upon. Applicant’s claimed invention is an application of existing technology to solve a business problem: handling overdrafts while preserving privacy. Applicant also asserted that the claimed invention solved a problem arising specifically in the field of distributed-ledger computer systems, thereby integrating any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Handling overdrafts while preserving privacy is not a problem that specifically arises in the field of distributed-ledger computer systems. The issues of overdrafts and privacy are not unique to the computer environment and existed before computers were used in commercial transactions. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the amended claims are directed to a specific cryptographic protocol for a distributed ledger and include operations that have no analog in the pre-computer, “human activity” world. Examiner disagrees. The specific cryptographic protocol referenced by Applicant is the solution to the problem of handling overdrafts while preserving privacy and consists of a series of instructions for the computer network to follow to achieve the desired results. The protocol does not change how the computer network operates and does not add or modify any of the functions of the computer network. It merely used the computer network and existing cryptographic technology as tools to implement a procedure for handling overdrafts and preserving privacy. The protocol, or procedure, is an example of a commercial interaction and considered abstract. The specificity of the protocol does not affect its abstract nature. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention recited a particular way of achieving a technical improvement and solved a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology, thereby integrating any judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional limitations that accompany the abstract idea merely show that computer components were used as tools to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment without any change in the functionality or operation of the computer components themselves. Such a use of computer components is not indicative of patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention provided significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examiner disagrees. The additional limitations, when combined with the abstract idea, did not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the additional limitations merely showed that computer components were used as tools to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment. Such an implementation does not indicate that the claimed invention presented significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the specific ordered combination of the hiding-commitment overdraft token, the zero-knowledge proof of the maximal credit value, the issuer-side signing with a key withheld from the user, and the serial-number-based tracing is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s 101 rejection does not rely on a finding that Applicant’s claimed invention is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. It is also not necessary for Examiner’s 101 rejection to rely on a finding that Applicant’s claimed invention is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, thereby making the issue moot. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21 under 35 USC 103.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified product claim 19 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1. Claim 19 recites the following limitations:
[a computer program product for managing user overdrafts in a privacy-preserving manner, the computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable storage media having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor set of a computerized system of an authorized overdraft issuer to cause the computerized system to perform operations comprising:]
generating a first serial number and an encryption key based on an overdraft request from a given user;
issuing a first overdraft token computed as a hiding commitment over a user identifier of the given user, an initial overdraft value, the first serial number, and the encryption key that is shared with the given user, the initial overdraft value corresponding to a maximal value of credit granted to the given user;
generating a first zero-knowledge proof proving that the initial overdraft value is equal to the maximal value of credit granted to the given user;
computing an overdraft transaction based on the first overdraft token and the first zero-knowledge proof and signing the computed overdraft transaction, by the authorized overdraft issuer, using a secret key that is associated with the authorized overdraft issuer and that is not shared with the given user;
submitting the overdraft transaction to a blockchain; and
tracing an overdraft-related operation of the given user based on the first serial number.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computer program product in Claim 19 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a computer program product. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1 and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-21 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 19 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-21 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner’s Statement of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Agrawal (US 2019/0164153), Lounegov (US 20225/0138843), and Szamel (US 2009/0076951) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Agrawal teaches a blockchain system for confidential and anonymous smart contracts. Lounegov teaches methods and apparatuses for core banking functionality and physical document control employing an ivatr with a genesis portion and associated storage portions. Szamel teaches a method and system for generating financial transaction instructions. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious limitations of “issuing a first overdraft token computed as a hiding commitment over a user identifier of the given user, an initial overdraft value, the first serial number, and the encryption key that is shared with the given user, the initial overdraft value corresponding to a maximal value of credit granted to the given user; generating a first zero-knowledge proof proving that the initial overdraft value is equal to the maximal value of credit granted to the given user; computing an overdraft transaction based on the first overdraft token and the first zero-knowledge proof and signing the computed overdraft transaction, by the authorized overdraft issuer, using a secret key that is associated with the authorized overdraft issuer and that is not shared with the given user; submitting the overdraft transaction to a blockchain; and tracing an overdraft-related operation of the given user based on the first serial number”, as described by the allowed claims. For these reasons, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Komandur (US 2020/0151686) discloses a system and method for cross-border blockchain platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
September 15, 2026
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights