DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to the communications filed on 2/4/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending; Claims 13-20 are withdrawn; Claims 1-12 have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims recite substantially similar limitations as recited in parent claim1; therefore, they do not further limit the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-12 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1-12 are directed to a method (i.e., process) which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing and verifying transactions by receiving a copy of the consumer ledger/account and a transaction posted to the consumer ledger/account; verifying that a currency utilized in the transaction posted to the consumer ledger/account has not been used in a previous transaction, wherein verifying further includes adding the transaction to the copy of consumer ledger over utilizing operations and wherein adding further includes causing multiple entries to be made to credit and debit various account balances simultaneously based on adding the transaction to the copy of the consumer ledger; and transmitting the copy of the consumer ledger/account to a plurality of miners; all of which include mental processes (evaluating transaction data for updating a judgement or opinion of verification of the consumer account and transaction), and certain methods of organizing human activity based on fundamental economic practice, and based on commercial and legal interactions managing/tracking sales activities or behaviors and business relations). Claims 2-12 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1with further details on the parameters/attributes of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-12 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a computing device and a portable computing device, a wallet application, blockchain, blockchain operations, these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, receiving and/or transmitting data between devices is mere data gathering and insignificant extrasolution activity, which does not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-12 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a computing device and a portable computing device, a wallet application, blockchain, blockchain operations, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, receiving and/or transmitting data between devices is mere data gathering and insignificant extrasolution activity, and also is well-understood, routine and conventional which do not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g) & (d)).
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-12 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wuehler (US 20170140408 A1)
As per Claim 1, Wuehler teaches a method for verifying a transaction posted to a consumer ledger (abstract and para. 0002), the method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device and from a portable computing device, a copy of the consumer ledger and a transaction posted to the consumer ledger (Abstract, para. 0068, 0074, 0080, 0083-0085; also see abstract, para. 0003, 0013, and 0019, regarding the system of the device including a processor accessing the distributed ledger; see fig. 1 for networked computers including portable devices communicating with each other via the network);
verifying, by the computing device, that a currency utilized in the transaction posted to the consumer ledger has not been used in a previous transaction (para. 0072, “in the case of a virtual currency transaction, any node within the block chain that creates a transaction can determine within a level of certainty whether the transaction can take place and become final by confirming that no conflicting transactions (i.e., the same currency unit has not already been spent) confirmed by the block chain elsewhere”),
wherein verifying further includes adding the transaction to the copy of consumer ledger over utilizing blockchain operations (Abstract, para. 0017, 0073, 0074, 0080, 0081, 0083-0085; also see para. 0003, 0012, 0019) and
wherein adding further includes causing multiple entries to be made to credit and debit various account balances simultaneously based on adding the transaction to the copy of the consumer ledger (para. 0073, regarding payment via wallet application, para. 0007 and 0018, regarding depositing/maintaining rewards in wallet application, para. 0039, regarding entering a redemption code as user action (i.e., transaction)); and
transmitting, by the computing device, the copy of the consumer ledger to a plurality of miners (Abstract, para. 0073, 0074, 0080-0081, 0083-0085; also see para. 0003, 0012, 0019; also see para. 0072, regarding “A large number of nodes of a block chain may reach a consensus regarding the validity of a transaction contained on the transaction ledger.”, para. 0077, regarding “Each node may also check the work of other nodes and in some cases, as noted above, function as miners or validators”, para. 0085, regarding “any of the nodes 610 may be a validator or a miner that validates transactions. In some embodiments, a number of the nodes 610 must validate a transaction in order for the transaction to be approved”).
As per Claim 3, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler further teaches wherein the transaction posted to the consumer ledger includes a plurality of transactions (para. 0083, regarding plurality of transactions being processed and validated via the block chain system of the invention, also see para. 0082).
As per Claim 4, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 3 above. Wuehler further teaches wherein the plurality of transactions includes transactions across a plurality of loyalty rewards programs (abstract, para. 0007-0010, regarding transactions associated with the rewards program; para. 0083, regarding plurality of transactions being processed and validated via the block chain system of the invention, also see para. 0082; Fig. 5, para. 0066-0068, 0070, 0057, regarding plurality of contracts and actions/transactions checked against these contracts).
As per Claim 7, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler further teaches wherein receiving further includes pulling the copy of the ledger from a blockchain (Abstract, para. 0068, 0074, 0080, 0083-0085; also see abstract, para. 0003, 0013, and 0019, regarding the system of the device including a processor accessing the distributed ledger).
As per Claim 9, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler further teaches wherein verifying further includes verifying the transaction utilizing a known or trusted entity (Abstract, para. 0017, 0073, 0074, 0080, 0081, 0083-0085; also see para. 0003, 0012, 0019; While Wuehler further teaches the plurality of miners, and merchant, customers, users that participate in a consumer loyalty program (i.e., members of the program) and each node of the system can function as miners (Wuehler para. 0040, regarding rewards program system and users/customers (i.e., members) of the system, para. 0077 “Each node may also check the work of other nodes and in some cases, as noted above, function as miners or validators”).
As per Claim 10, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler further teaches adding the transaction to the copy of consumer ledger over utilizing blockchain operations (Abstract, para. 0017, 0073, 0074, 0080, 0081, 0083-0085; also see para. 0003, 0012, 0019).
As per Claim 11, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 10 above. Wuehler further teaches wherein adding further includes causing multiple entries to be made to credit and debit various account balances simultaneously based on adding the transaction to the copy of the consumer ledger (para. 0073, regarding payment via wallet application, para. 0007 and 0018, regarding depositing/maintaining rewards in wallet application, para. 0039, regarding entering a redemption code as user action (i.e., transaction)).
As per Claim 12, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler further teaches processing the transaction via a wallet application (para. 0073, regarding payment via wallet application, para. 0007 and 0018, regarding depositing/maintaining rewards in wallet application, para. 0039, regarding entering a redemption code as user action (i.e., transaction)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuehler (US 20170140408 A1) in view of Hari et al (US 20170324738 A1).
As per Claim 2, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler further teaches wherein the computing device is a miner of the plurality of miners (para. 0077, regarding “each node in a peer-to-peer network or blockchain distributed network may act as a title registry and escrow, thereby executing changes of ownership and implementing sets of predetermined rules that govern transactions on the network. Each node may also check the work of other nodes and in some cases, as noted above, function as miners or validators”); and Hari teaches where the miners being a verified miner (para. 0032, regarding miners are peers in the blockchain network and “The peers have one or more cryptographic keys associated therewith (e.g., a private key and a public key), respectively, for operating on the Internet blockchain (e.g., for use in signing and verifying Internet resource transactions for Internet resources 102). The peers have Internet blockchain addresses associated therewith, respectively, for operating on the Internet blockchain or at least being involved in Internet resource transactions using the Internet blockchain.”, And also para. 0033 “It will be appreciated that, since any peer may be a miner, and all Internet resource transactions can be verified by all peers, a compromised miner which puts out invalid Internet resource transactions (e.g., fake transactions, double transactions, or the like) will be detected by the peers immediately or nearly immediately. As a result, the Internet blockchain makes the Internet resistant, or at least more resistant, to compromised peers or miners, thereby enabling decentralized Internet resource transactions across untrusted peers in a secure manner” ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wuehler with the aforementioned teachings of Hari, in the field of Blockchain applications, with the motivation to decrease/minimize errors in the transaction verification process.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuehler (US 20170140408 A1) in view of Official Notice.
As per Claim 5, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler does not teach wherein verifying that the currency utilized in the transaction has not been used in a previous transaction occurs in less than 1 minute. Official Notice is taken that verification of funds in an account in the computer age is almost instantaneous. It would be a design choice for the ordinary skill, before the earliest effective filing date of the invention, to place a limit on funds verification, in this case a minute, to eliminate broken code or business processes that did not properly access a particular account or transaction.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuehler (US 20170140408 A1).
As per Claim 6, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler further teaches wherein transmitting further includes signing the copy of the consumer ledger by a majority of the miners (para. 0072, regarding “A large number of nodes of a block chain may reach a consensus regarding the validity of a transaction contained on the transaction ledger.”, para. 0077, regarding “Each node may also check the work of other nodes and in some cases, as noted above, function as miners or validators”, para. 0085, regarding “any of the nodes 610 may be a validator or a miner that validates transactions. In some embodiments, a number of the nodes 610 must validate a transaction in order for the transaction to be approved”; Note that the number of validating/verifying miners being majority is a design choice and it does not distinguish the invention over prior art. It would be obvious for and ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to rearrange parts of an invention, herein modifying the number of miners to sign/verify to reach majority, (MPEP 2144.04) with the motivation to increase accuracy of the verification/validation decision).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuehler (US 20170140408 A1) in view of Sheets et al (AU 2014290143 A1).
As per Claim 8, Wuehler teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Wuehler does not; however, Sheets teaches wherein verifying further includes utilizing a public key and an address associated with the transaction to verify an owner of loyalty rewards authorized for the transaction ([0129] Steps 606-608 are similar to those described above in reference to steps 506-508 of FIG. 5, however, the identity of the transaction processor certificate may include any of the merchant application 121, the merchant computer 130, or the acquirer computer 150. Accordingly, the remote key manager 140 may validate the received public key certificate, decrypt the encrypted payment information (e.g., account identifier and cryptogram), and re-encrypt the decrypted payment information (e.g., card data and cryptogram), with the public key extracted from the received public key certificate. As explained above, the public key certificate may be associated with any transaction processor including, for example, a merchant computer 130, merchant application 121, or an acquirer computer 150.; [0139] Alternatively or in combination, the merchant application 121 may have the routing information (e.g., server computer address) associated with merchant computer 130 programmed into the merchant application 121 and when the transaction is initiated, the merchant application 121 may know that any respective payment response message may be routed to the merchant computer 130.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wuehler with the aforementioned teachings of Sheets, in the field of transactions processing, with the motivation to more accurately verify accounts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Amendments merely add to the abstract idea except blockchain operation which is identified as “apply it” and/or “generally linking”. Further applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of Desjardins and Enfish cases/decisions.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments focus on the limitations copied from claims 10 and 11. Wuehler teaches, at least in Abstract, para. 0017, 0073, 0074, 0080, 0081, 0083-0085, 0003, 0012, 0019, verifying further includes adding the transaction to the copy of consumer ledger over utilizing blockchain operations. Further, Wuehler also teaches at least in para. 0073, regarding payment via wallet application, para. 0007 and 0018, regarding depositing/maintaining rewards in wallet application, para. 0039, regarding entering a redemption code as user action (i.e., transaction); thus, adding further includes causing multiple entries to be made to credit and debit various account balances simultaneously based on adding the transaction to the copy of the consumer ledger.
Conclusion
Additional relevant art not relied upon, specifically related to blockchain and PBFT combination, includes:
Derbakova (US-20180113752-A1);
Berg (US-20170338963-A1);
Setty (US-20180089683-A1);
Castagna (US-20180101848-A1);
Simon (US-20160012424-A1);
Pierce et al (US 20180039667 A1);
Melika et al (US 20160350728 A1);
Thomas et al (US 20160342985 A1);
Wilson et al (US 20160292680 A1);
Patel et al (D. Patel, J. Bothra and V. Patel, "Blockchain exhumed," 2017 ISEA Asia Security and Privacy (ISEASP), Surat, India, 2017, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1109/ISEASP.2017.7976993.); and
Christidis et al (K. Christidis and M. Devetsikiotis, "Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things," in IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 2292-2303, 2016, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339.)
Please refer to the parent application record for copies of the non-patent literature references.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624