DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed January 29, 2026 in which claims 1 and 11 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 11.
The claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus and claims 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : memory circuitry; and processor circuitry connected to the memory circuitry, wherein the processor circuitry is configured to implement a distributed NFT engine architecture operating across multiple servers and computing nodes, wherein the processor circuitry is to: receive a set of user data items associated with a user; verify each user data item of the set of user data items, wherein the verification includes biometric authentication using sensor hardware that captures physiological characteristics and processes the physiological characteristics through biometric processing circuits authenticating at least a portion of the set of user data items from other sources and comparing biographic data against publicly available data to verify an identity of the user; generate a set of hashes, wherein each hash in the set of hashes corresponds to a verified user data item in the set of user data items; mint a KYC NFT that includes each hash in the set of hashes; and update a smart contract to include the KYC NFT; monitor, in real-time via the smart contract, transactions across multiple organizations associated with the user; detect suspicious activity by configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units to analyze patterns of transactions in real-time across the multiple organizations that are not detectable by individual organizations, wherein the patterns include one or more of i) monitoring deposits made into a predetermined or configurable number of financial institution accounts, ii) deposits made by the user into other accounts at various organizations that are owned or not owned by the user, iii) making multiple matching deposits, transfers, or payments on the same day or in successive days, or iv) multiple low-score users associated with different organizations making deposits into a single account; automatically generate and transmit notifications to relevant entities upon detection of the suspicious activity. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, and hedging). Verifying and storing a verified record of the user data is a way of mitigating risk and mitigating risk is classified under fundamental economic principles. Generating a set of hashes can be characterized as a mathematical operation and hence falls under “Mathematical concepts”. The claim also recites memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as mathematical concepts and a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the mathematical concepts or methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts” and “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, respectively. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 2, [0018], [0051], [0128]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claim 11 and hence the claim 11 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15 and 17 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claim 1 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of a user application (app). A user application (app), is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 3 and 12 recite the additional element of a blockchain which simply describes the technological environment further. A blockchain, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the additional element of a database. A database, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the additional element of computing platforms. The computing platforms, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the additional element of code snippets. The code snippets, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible.
Prior art
3. The prior art rejection was withdrawn in the Final Rejection dated July 17, 2025 based on the claim amendments. An updated search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed dated 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong two (on pages 08-10), Applicant states that, “the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the amended claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. Claims are simply carrying out the abstract idea using blockchain as a tool. User authentication and fraud detection are abstract ideas. Biometric authentication using sensor hardware and machine learning algorithms are merely generic additional elements used to implement the abstract idea. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in abstract idea. The additional elements of memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and “configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units” result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of memory circuitry, processor circuitry, distributed NFT engine architecture, servers, computing nodes, sensor hardware, biometric processing circuits, NFT, a smart contract and configuring machine learning algorithms executing on neural processing units to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 2-Fig. 3, Fig. 5-Fig. 6, [0018], [0051], [0128]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
6. Applicant argues that (page 10) the claims are analogous to those found statutory in SRI.
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the Applicant’s claims and those of SRI. In SRI, the claims are directed to a method of providing network security by generating an integrated report of suspicious activity from network monitors across an enterprise network. The focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities'—that is, providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks. Hence, the claims in SRI are patent eligible. However, claim 1 of the instant case is not directed to network security. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in abstract idea. The improvements discussed in the amended claim 1 are simply directed to the abstract idea itself and do not result in any computer functionality or technical/technology improvement. Hence, SRI is not applicable.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
7. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
8. 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 BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
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.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694