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 .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “creating… the plurality of subnetwork…”.
Claims 3 and 5 recite “a blockchain network… the plurality of subnetwork…”.
Underlined words “subnetwork” should be written in plural: “subnetworks”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant filed amendment on 12/01/2025. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-6 are amended. Claims 1-6 are rejected. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
4. Applicant’s arguments toward 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Amended independent claims do not have additional elements that could lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
5. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims as a whole directed to verifying a financial transaction using cryptography (e.g., hashes, signatures) which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity is similar to commercial activities”.
6. Applicant is of the opinion “that amended claims 1-6 are patent eligible as they effect an
improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) in terms of providing
computationally efficient and verifiable cryptographic subnetwork for bilateral transactions
among a plurality of banks participating in a blockchain network” and continues that “claimed subject matter leverages cryptographic primitives such as BLS to preserve the privacy of the customer's financial information and to enable faster auditable settlement between the banks in the presence of a governing body. Thus, the claimed subject matter provides a computationally efficient mechanism that preserve the privacy of customer financial information and provides verifiable cryptographic guarantees for debits and credits of a transaction without revealing customer information”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. According to MPEP 2106.04(d) II examiner requires to: “… (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…”.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “a blockchain network”, “one or more hardware processors”, “a plurality of subnetworks”, “a plurality of nodes”, “a subnetwork among the plurality of subnetwork[s]”, “a first private shared database”, “a second private shared database”, “a common private shared database”, “the signatures are created using pairing based cryptographic algorithms”, “a global ledger of the blockchain network”, and “Boneh-Lynn-Shacham (BLS) cryptographic primitive” used 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.
Performing the steps, operations, or actions by using a specific modification to existing blockchain network systems that provide computationally efficient mechanism that preserve the privacy of customer information and provides verifiable cryptographic guarantees of a transaction without revealing customer information does not integrate the judicial exception under a practical application because it is merely the use of the computer as an implementation tool for the abstract idea.
The purported improvements are improvements in ineligible subject matter, i.e., methods of performing financial transactions between customers of different financial institutions. Here, the additional elements recited by the claim generally link the use of the abstract idea, even if it is conceivably an improved abstract idea, to a particular technological environment or field of use; and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
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 the abstract idea.
7. Applicant is also of the opinion that “Claims recite additional element (s) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (s)” and concludes “that the claimed subject matter comprises additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in terms of preserving the privacy of customer financial information and providing verifiable cryptographic guarantees for debits and credits of a transaction without revealing customer information by using a subnetwork of plurality of banks that act as nodes of the subnetwork in a blockchain network”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the reasons already discussed above – the additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. As per the identification of the “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the rejection properly identifies the elements which are recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, including a computing platform, at least one processor, a communication interface, a memory, a plurality of self-service kiosks, a machine learning model. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the “additional elements” have been identified and the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Under Step 2B, the additional elements have been evaluated and do not amount to “significantly more”. Note that Revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. The identification of the additional elements in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two is carried over as well as the conclusion from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f), and (h).
8. Applicant is also referring to “Example 41 of Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” and argues that “along similar lines as the above-cited example, the claimed subject matter also integrates the additional elements into a practical application in terms of preserving the privacy of customer financial information and providing verifiable cryptographic guarantees for debits and credits of a transaction without revealing customer information by using a subnetwork of plurality of banks that act as nodes of the subnetwork in a blockchain network”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Example 41 the abstract idea integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application of transmitting the ciphertext word signal to a computer terminal over a communication channel.
On the contrary, the present claim limitations recite the abstract idea of verifying a financial transaction using cryptography which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity is similar to commercial activities”.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
9. Rejection of claims 2, 4, and 6 based on “Lack of Algorithm” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
10. Rejection of claims 3-6 based on “Hybrid Claim” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5 based on “Relative Term” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 6 based on “Lack of antecedent basis” due to amendment is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
11. Rejection of claims 3-6 due to amendments are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
13. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Unclear scope
14. “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
15. Claim 1 recites “v) receiving the proof of transaction … and a modified version of provable data possession (PDP) is used for proving…”.
The specification fails to detail which steps are the “modified version of provable data possession”. For example, paragraph 49 describes what some might consider a “modified version of provable data possession”, but it is unclear whether the “receiving a record transaction request” is included with the scope of the “modified version of provable data possession” or not.
16. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from the application being examined. MPEP 2173.02 I.
17. Claim 2 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because claim 2 inherits the deficiencies of claim 1 due to its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
20. In the instant case, claims 1, 3, and 5 are directed to a “method, system, and one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums of inter-bank transaction with privacy enabled auditing and privacy enabled inter-bank settlements in blockchain network”.
21. Claim 1 recites “verifying a financial transaction using cryptography (e.g., hashes, signatures)”. Specifically, claim recites “creating … for bilateral transactions among a plurality of banks participating … wherein … comprises a first bank with … and a second bank with … among the first bank, the second bank and a governing authority present within … and wherein a bilateral transaction comprises at least one of: (a) an inter-bank transaction between a first customer of the first bank and a second customer of the second bank by the governing authority through… and (b) inter-bank settlements between the first bank and the second bank; detecting … at least one of (a) initiation of a transaction request to transfer funds or payment from the first customer of the first bank with the second customer of the second bank and (b) an inter-bank settlement request between the first bank and the second bank; and performing … the inter-bank transaction with auditing by the governing authority on detecting the initiation of the transaction request, wherein performing the inter-bank transaction comprising: i) receiving a record of the transaction request to transfer funds or payment for the inter-bank transaction from the first customer of the first bank to the second customer of the second bank; ii) recording transaction details by the first bank for the first customer and the second bank for the second customer with a transaction timestamp by creating signatures for a current and an updated balance of the first customer and the second customer based on a transaction amount, wherein the updated balance is stored … the first bank for the first customer and … the second bank for the second customer, and wherein…; iii) storing hashes and signatures of the current and the updated balance by the first bank for the first customer and the second bank for the second customer on … wherein … is accessible to the first bank, the second bank and the governing authority; iv) creating (a) a proof of transaction by the first bank, by subtracting the updated balance from current balance of the first customer (UA−U′A=T), and (b) the proof of transaction by the second bank by subtracting the current balance from the updated balance for the second customer (U′B−UB=T); and v) receiving the proof of transaction from the first bank and the second bank by the governing authority and comparing the received proof of transaction with the stored hashes, and signatures of the balances… wherein …that uses Bilinear Pairings to verify correctness of the interbank transaction and a modified version of provable data possession (PDP) is used for proving whether the received proof of transaction is intact or not”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
22. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “a blockchain network”, “one or more hardware processors”, “a plurality of subnetworks”, “a plurality of nodes”, “a subnetwork among the plurality of subnetwork[s]”, “a first private shared database”, “a second private shared database”, “a common private shared database”, “the signatures are created using pairing based cryptographic algorithms”, “a global ledger of the blockchain network”, and “Boneh-Lynn-Shacham (BLS) cryptographic primitive” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “i) receiving a record of the transaction request to transfer funds or payment for the inter-bank transaction from the first customer of the first bank to the second customer of the second bank”, “iii) storing hashes and signatures of the current and the updated balance by the first bank for the first customer and the second bank for the second customer on a global ledger of the blockchain network…”, and “(v) receiving the proof of transaction from the first bank and the second bank by the governing authority…” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
23. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of verifying a financial transaction using cryptography using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
24. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
25. Claims 3 and 5 also recite “verifying a financial transaction using cryptography”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
26. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claims 3 and 5 such as “a system”, “a blockchain network”, “a plurality of subnetworks”, “a plurality of nodes”, “a subnetwork among the plurality of subnetwork[s]”, “a first private shared database”, “a second private shared database”, “a common private shared database”, “the signatures are created using pairing based cryptographic algorithms”, “a global ledger of the blockchain network”, and “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums”, and “one or more hardware processors” respectively, do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving a record of the transaction request to transfer funds or payment for the inter-bank transaction from the first customer of the first bank to the second customer of the second bank”, “storing hashes and signatures of the current and the updated balance by the first bank for the first customer and the second bank for the second customer on a global ledger of the blockchain network…”, and “receiving the proof of transaction from the first bank and the second bank by the governing authority…” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
27. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describes the concept of verifying a financial transaction using cryptography using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
28. Hence, claims 3 and 5 are not patent eligible.
29. Dependent claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of verifying a financial transaction using cryptography, as it recites “performing … the inter-bank settlements through … on detecting the inter-bank settlement request between the first bank and the second bank comprising: i) computing a sum of all credits transaction (TAC and TBC) and debits transaction (TAD and TBD) for end of predefined settlement cycle by the first bank and the second bank; ii) creating the signatures (σT AD -T AC) for a proof of settlement by the first bank and the signatures (σT BD -T BC) for the proof of settlement by the second bank; iii) verifying mutually by the first bank and the second bank, banks settlement using debits and credits against the proof of settlement received from each other; iv) storing settlement details along with the proof of settlement … accessible to the governing authority; and v) storing transaction … by the governing authority”. The additional elements such as “the subnetwork executed by the one or more hardware processors”, “the blockchain network”, “the common private shared database”, and “the global ledger” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. And, with respect to “storing settlement details along with the proof of settlement on the common private shared database, accessible to the governing authority” and “storing transaction on the global ledger by the governing authority” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of verifying a financial transaction using cryptography, as it recites “wherein … performs the inter-bank settlements through … on detecting the inter-bank settlement request between the first bank and the second bank comprising: i) computing a sum of all credits transaction (TAC and TBC) and debits transaction (TAD and TBD) for end of predefined settlement cycle by the first bank and the second bank; ii) creating the signatures (σT AD -T AC) for a proof of settlement by the first bank and the signatures (σT BD -T BC) for the proof of settlement by the second bank; iii) verifying mutually by the first bank and the second bank, banks settlement using debits and credits against the proof of settlement received from each other; iv) storing settlement details along with the proof of settlement … accessible to the governing authority; and v) storing transaction … by the governing authority”. The additional elements such as “the subnetwork”, “the blockchain network”, “the common private shared database”, and “the global ledger” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. And, with respect to “storing settlement details along with the proof of settlement on the common private shared database, accessible to the governing authority” and “storing transaction on the global ledger by the governing authority” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 6 further describes the abstract idea of verifying a financial transaction using cryptography, as it recites “wherein … performs the inter-bank settlements through … on detecting the inter-bank settlement request between the first bank and the second bank comprising: vi) computing a sum of all credits transaction (TAC and TBC) and debits transaction (TAD and TBD) for end of predefined settlement cycle by the first bank and the second bank; vii) creating the signatures (σT AD -T AC) for a proof of settlement by the first bank and the signatures (σT BD -T BC) for the proof of settlement by the second bank; viii) verifying mutually by the first bank and the second bank, banks settlement using debits and credits against the proof of settlement received from each other; ix) storing settlement details along with the proof of settlement … accessible to the governing authority; and x) storing transaction … by the governing authority”. The additional elements such as “the subnetwork executed by the one or more hardware processors”, “the blockchain network”, “the common private shared database”, and “the global ledger” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. And, with respect to “storing settlement details along with the proof of settlement on the common private shared database, accessible to the governing authority” and “storing transaction on the global ledger by the governing authority” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Conclusion of 35 USC §101
30. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
31. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20180121911A1 – Hallam et al. – Discloses systems and methods for the application of distributed ledgers for network payments as financial exchange settlement and reconciliation, wherein a method for processing network payments using a distributed ledger.
US20200294158A1 – Karame et al. – Discloses a method of providing secure ledger distribution for interbank settlement includes maintaining a first consensus layer in a mainchain among a plurality of nodes of the centralized computer system and a second consensus layer in a first private sidechain among at least one node of the centralized computer system and computer systems of at least a first sender bank and a first receiver bank, each of which have an account with the central bank.
US20210158312A1 – Arora et al. – Discloses a method for minimizing inter-bank settlement through incremental updates stored via blockchains includes storing three blockchains: a balance blockchain updated periodically that includes an available balance for a plurality of blockchain wallets, a credit blockchain that includes credits made to a blockchain wallet, and a debit blockchain that includes payments made from the blockchain wallet.
US20210357915A1 – Makrides – Discloses methods, systems, and devices for solving the technological problem of security within centralized payment systems using hybrids of cryptographically secure distributed ledger technologies and centralized payment systems.
US11568388B1 – Adapala et al. – Discloses a method, system, and apparatus for performing a transaction for a customer having a fiat account with a financial institution wherein the method includes receiving a transaction request from the customer, the transaction request including a request to transfer a first amount of fiat currency to a receiving account held at a partner financial institution.
33. 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.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights