CTFR 18/428,040 CTFR 85204 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status As of the Office Action dated February 5, 2026 claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-22 were pending and claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-22 stood rejected. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-22 are therefore currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits. Response to Arguments Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-22 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner has reviewed both the Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardin decision (precedential) and the non-precedential Ex Parte Daniel Carmody decision along with the revised sections of the MPEP. As an initial matter Examiner would note that both of the decisions cited by Applicant were directed towards specific situations involving machine learning and specific operations applicable to the instantiation of machine learning which are clearly not present in the instant claims. Furthermore in reviewing Applicant’s analysis it is clear that Applicant is not actually using the guidelines from the MPEP in applying the analysis. For example in Applicant’s Section (II)(a) alleging that the claims are not directed towards a mental process Examiner would note that the claimed VASP classification process operates in the same manner as the Standard Industrial Classification system codes (SIC) which date back to 1937 and where the classifications have been supplemented over time to encompass new and emerging industries. Clearly the use of a classification system that merely assigns a code to an industry predates the invention of a computer and therefore demonstrably can be done in the human mind. Examiner notes that the alleged Prong One Step 2A analysis provided by Applicant is actually a hybrid of Prong One and Prong Two and is not what the MPEP requires. For example on page 8 Applicant argues that “ These are concrete, computer-network operations involving specific computer-to-computer communications and a multi-step manipulation of data that, like the multi-step computer-communication data manipulations of TQP Development, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. A human being cannot transmit data signals to a blockchain node, execute queries on a blockchain network, or receive blockchain data from a blockchain node. These operations require specific cryptographic protocols, network communications, and distributed ledger interactions that are beyond the capability of the human mind .” Clearly this is not utilizing the analysis described in MPEP § 2106.04(a) regarding the determination as to whether a claim recites an abstract idea as the argument brings the elements such as the blockchain, the communications and data operations that would be analyzed in Prong Two of Step 2A, not Prong One in reaching a conclusion that the claim does not recite operations that could be performed mentally or constitute part of a fundamental economic practice. Examiner would also point out that MPEP § 2106.04(a) has not been altered since Desjardin and therefore Examiner could not have done “precisely what the updated MPEP now prohibits” as argued on page 8 of remarks (notably Applicant referred to MPEP § 2106.05(a) which is a section that is used only in the Prong Two analysis under Step 2A and the analysis in Step 2B). The argument relative to Prong One of Step 2A as recited in must therefore be viewed as unpersuasive as Applicant’s Section (II)(a) is deficient in both the performance of an actual analysis under MPEP § 2106.04(a) and a reliance on Desjardin which is not relevant to the analysis under MPEP § 2106.04(a). Applicant’s argument in Section (II)(b) also exhibits a deficiency with regard to analysis under MPEP § 2106.04(a) as it recites the elements used in the performance of the abstract idea which are more appropriately considered in Prong Two of Step 2A and in Step 2B and therefore is also held as deficient. Similarly in section III of Applicant’s remarks what Applicant alleges is an analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A is actually a combination of Prong Two elements in combination with Prong One recitations that in no way actually reflect the guidance of either MPEP § 2106.04(d) or MPEP § 2106.05 sections (a)-(c) or (e)-(h). The “analysis” devolves into what can only be described as the benefits of the abstract idea (page 11 beginning with Dynamic Classification Update) as opposed to any clear technological improvement. The citation to a non-precedential board decision also is persuasive as there is no clear correlation to the rationale used in that decision to the claim at hand. The claims do not actually claim any improvement to the blockchain but merely utilize the blockchain in order to derive the free-flowing benefits of tamper-resistance and immutability. The actual claims do nothing more than tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Applicant is relying heavily on case law citations both in argument and in reference to the MPEP but is not persuasive in tying the decisions to the claims themselves and instead is repeatedly bringing in the abstract idea itself in order to allege a technological improvement. Therefore with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A Applicant’s argument must be held as being unpersuasive. Applicant’s argument with regard to Step 2B is essentially a summary of the argument presented with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A and is also unpersuasive. Applicant’s argument with regard to the dependent claims is also unpersuasive as the dependent claims do nothing more than either further elaborate on the abstract idea or describe unimproved elements. Therefore this argument is also unpersuasive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8, 10-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method and therefore meets eligibility Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility criteria per MPEP § 2106.03. The analysis then proceeds to eligibility step 2A in which the claim is analyzed in order to determine whether the claim is directed towards a judicial exception per MPEP § 2106.04. Step 2A is a Two-Prong Inquiry where in Prong One the claim is analyzed in order to determine whether the claim is directed towards a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites storing an account profile associated with a virtual asset service provider (VASP), receiving transaction data for a plurality of payment transaction involving the VASP including a first industry classification and an entity identifier, analyzing the transaction data to identify a second industry classification, comparing the second industry classification with the first industry classification and if the comparison does not match then transmitting the second industry classification and the identifier to a blockchain node in a blockchain network for addition to the blockchain. Industry classification is done by human assignment and can be viewed as a mental process and analyzing the transaction data which would involve looking for transactions that for a VASP would involve looking for a merchant engaging in one of the following activities per the Financial Action Task Force definition taken from “Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach: Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers”, October 2021, 111 pages: Virtual asset service provider means any natural or legal person who is not covered elsewhere under the Recommendations, and as a business conducts one or more of the following activities or operations for or on behalf of another natural or legal person: exchange between virtual assets and fiat currencies; exchange between one or more forms of virtual assets; transfer 1 of virtual assets; safekeeping and/or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets; and participation in and provision of financial services related to an issuer’s offer and/or sale of a virtual asset. 1 In this context of virtual assets, transfer means to conduct a transaction on behalf of another natural or legal person that moves a virtual asset from one virtual asset address or account to another. (From printed page 109 of the Guidance) Any of the five activities listed above would warrant a merchant being classified as a VASP and for example reviewing of a list of purchase transactions that included a particular transaction involving the purchase of cryptocurrency with fiat currency (the analyzing and comparing steps along with the evaluation that the industry classifications do not match) would be instantly recognizable by a human being who would then conclude that the particular transaction was directed towards financial institutions in general and in particular involved a VASP and therefore can be viewed as a mental process (MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(III)) (deciding what industry classification to which a particular merchant belongs to) combined with a fundamental economic practice (MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(III)(A)) (engaging in the exchange of one type of currency for another currency, transferring currency, acting as a custodian for financial assets or participating in offerings of virtual currency). In the event that a particular merchant was listed with an original industry classification other than VASP a human being with at least some familiarity with the list of industry classifications would also be able to discern that the original classification was either in error or that the merchant was engaging in a new activity that should also be included in the merchant’s list of industry classifications. When looking at the individual limitations the claim recites receiving transaction data for a plurality of payment transactions involving the VASP where the transaction data includes an entity identifier for each transaction, analyzing the transaction data to identify a second industry classification associated with the VASP, comparing the second industry classification with a stored first industry classification and in the event that the second industry classification does not match the first industry classification transmitting the second industry classification and the entity identifier to i.e. update the classifications assigned to the VASP in question. At a later point in time a verification request is received regarding a VASP and the current industry classification is identified and reported to the requesting entity. Analyzing transaction data in order to determine if the VASP is either engaging in activity that involves a different industry classification or is indicative that the existing classification is incorrect is an operation that can be performed by a human being by simple observation and evaluation. Once the conclusion is reached that existing classification data is either incorrect or incomplete initiating an action to correct the classification data is also within the realm of a mental process and given that the data involves the classification of a VASP (which can be viewed as a particular type of merchant engaging in a particular type of economic activity) the operation can also be viewed as a fundamental economic practice given that operating a business that engages in financial transactions requires meeting regulations that necessitate collection and verification of data regarding the transactions and the participants (as noted in the background of the written disclosure in paragraph 0003). Therefore under Prong One of Step 2A claim 1 is deemed as being ineligible. The analysis then proceeds to Prong Two of Step 2A in which a claim is analyzed in order to determine whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the use of a database for storing data, receiving data by a receiver, analyzing data by a processor, comparing data by a processor and transmitting data to a blockchain. No technological improvement is being made to the processor or any other technology or technical field and the elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in a manner that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea per MPEP § 2106.04(d) and MPEP § 2106.05(a) and (f). Looking at each limitation individually the operation of storing in an account database of a processing server an account profile associated with a VASP wherein the account profile includes at least a first industry classification and entity identifier associated with the VASP can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and no apparent modification is being made to the operation of storing (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operation of receiving, by a receiver of the processing server, a first data signal including transaction data for a plurality of payment transactions involving the VASP, the transaction data for each payment transaction of the plurality of payment transactions including at least the entity identifier also can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation is also directed to necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operation of analyzing, by a processor of the processing server, at least the received transaction data to identify a second industry classification associated with the VASP constitutes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as the analysis only requires knowledge of the particular types of transactions that would lead to a conclusion that the entity was acting as a VASP which is an assessment that can be made by a human being. The operation of comparing, by the processor of the processing server, the second industry classification with the first industry classification also constitutes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as a human being is also capable of looking at two pieces of data, determining whether or not they are identical and forming a response based on the comparison. The operation of transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, a second data signal including at least the second industry classification and the entity identifier associated with the VASP to a blockchain node in a blockchain network for addition to a blockchain associated with the blockchain network can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity the limitation amounts to necessary data outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operation of receiving, by the receiver of the processing server from a requesting entity, a third data signal including a verification request of a current industry classification of a VASP, the verification request including at least an entity identifier also can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation is also directed to necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operation of executing, by the processor of the processing server, a query on the blockchain network, the query including the entity identifier included in the verification request also can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation is also directed to necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operation of receiving, by the receiving device of the processing server from the blockchain node in the blockchain network, blockchain data, the blockchain data including the entity identifier included in the verification request also can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation is also directed to necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operation of identifying, by the processor of the processing server, the current industry classification included in the received blockchain data, the current industry classification being the first industry classification or the second industry classification constitutes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as this only requires an observation capable of being performed by a human being. The operations of generating, by the processor of the processing server, an industry classification report, the industry classification report including the current industry classification; and transmitting, by the transmitter of the processing server, a fourth data signal including the industry classification report to the requesting entity can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity the limitations amount to necessary data outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). In reviewing the elements of structure which include an account database, a receiver, a transmitter and a processor of a processing server in conjunction with a blockchain node in a blockchain network as the processing server and the account database, receiver, transmitter and processor are directed towards a generic computer as any computer has mechanisms for processing data, inputting and outputting data and storing data used in the processing operations and therefore this does not distinguish the recited processing server but merely serves to describe the technological environment. The addition of the blockchain when taken in conjunction with the processing server also does not distinguish the claim as the processing server merely collects and operates on locally gathered data and passes the output to the blockchain in a hierarchical manner where the blockchain is apparently being used as a master database for the transactions and VASP categorizations that is publicly accessible per the written disclosure at paragraph 0004 (“… The new classification is assigned to the VASP and stored in a publicly accessible blockchain, where authorities and applicable agencies can use the new classification, such as for the application of tax rates and rules and industry regulations. The result is a standard and transparent process for the industry classification of VASPs ”). No particular adaptation to the blockchain is apparently present as the data stored at the processing server which is described in paragraph 0004 as receiving the classification and identifier for the VASP “… based on data provided by the VASP during a registration process ” is operated on by the processing server and simply passed on to the blockchain for achieving the goal of publicly accessible storage. Therefore as none of the elements recited in the claim either constitute a technology improvement or do more than link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment under Prong Two of Step 2A the claim is deemed as being ineligible as claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea without any practical application as the term is defined in MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis then proceeds to Step 2B where the claim is evaluated in order to determine whether the claim contains additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (also described as an inventive concept) (MPEP § 2106.05). In reviewing the operations of storing an account profile, receiving transaction data, transmitting the classification, receiving a verification request, executing a query on the blockchain, receiving blockchain data, generating an industry classification report and transmitting the report each operation is specified at a high level of generality (MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) and would appear to require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions as none of the above operations as claimed or described in the written disclosure require any alterations in order to affect their execution. Therefore under Step 2B claim 1 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 2 recites “… storing, in a transaction database of the processing server, transaction information for a plurality of past transactions involving one or more alternative entities, wherein analyzing the received transaction data further includes analyzing the received transaction data with the stored transaction information to identify the second industry classification ”. The operation of storing comprises both data gathering with regard to the transaction information for a plurality of past transactions and a generic recitation of storing operating at a generally high level and the analyzing is recited in a manner that emulates human thought. No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept. Therefore claim 2 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 3 recites “…t he account profile further includes transaction information for a plurality of past payment transactions involving the VASP, and analyzing the received transaction data further includes analyzing the received transaction data with the transaction information to identify the second industry classification ”. The analyzing is recited in a manner that emulates human thought. No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept. Therefore claim 3 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 4 recites “… wherein the plurality of payment transactions includes one or more transactions funded via cryptographic currency and/or one or more transactions funded via fiat currency ”. No actual operation is recited in the claim and merely describes the nature of the data that has been gathered. No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept. Therefore claim 4 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 5 recites “… wherein the account profile further includes at least one of user activity, business practices, and entity data associated with the VASP, and analyzing the received transaction data further includes analyzing the received transaction data with one or more of the at least one of user activity, business practices, and entity data associated with the VASP to identify the second industry classification. ” The analyzing is recited in a manner that emulates human thought. No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept. Therefore claim 5 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 6 recites “… wherein the first industry classification is a first merchant category code, and the second industry classification is a second merchant category code .” No actual operation is recited in the claim and merely describes the nature of the data that has been gathered. No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept. Therefore claim 6 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 7 recites “… wherein the blockchain is a public blockchain .” No actual operation is recited in the claim and merely describes the nature of the access to the stored data. No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept. Therefore claim 7 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 8 recites “… digitally signing, by the processor of the processing server, the second industry classification using a private key of a cryptographic key pair, wherein the second industry classification transmitted to the blockchain node is the digitally signed second industry classification. ” The operation of performing a digital signature can be viewed as both a fundamental economic practice (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) and a mathematical concept as cryptography relies on mathematical relationships (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)). No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept as the signing operation is recited at a generally high level . Therefore claim 8 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 19 recites “… wherein the analyzing the received transaction data to identify the second industry classification associated with the VASP is performed automatically at predetermined intervals .” The analyzing is recited in a manner that emulates human thought and only requires that it be performed periodically. No recitations are provided that would alter the analysis under steps 2A and 2B that would either form a practical application or an inventive concept. Therefore claim 19 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 20 recites “… receiving, by a receiver of the processing server, new transaction data for a plurality of new payment transactions involving the VASP, the new transaction data for each new payment transaction of the plurality of new payment transactions including at least the entity identifier; analyzing, by a processor of the processing server, at least the received new transaction data to identify a third industry classification associated with the VASP; comparing, by the processor of the processing server, the third industry classification with the second industry classification; in response to the third industry classification not matching the second industry classification, transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, at least the third industry classification and the entity identifier associated with the VASP to a blockchain node in a blockchain network for addition to a blockchain associated with the blockchain network; generating, by the processor of the processing server, an updated industry classification report, the updated industry classification report including the third industry classification; and transmitting, by the transmitter of the processing server, the updated industry classification report to the requesting entity .” The claim is not substantially different in nature from claim 1 above as the operations are identical in nature and only suggest a temporal aspect where each of the operations from claim 1 will be repeated over time. No new elements are added in claim 20 and claim 20 contains the same abstract idea present in claim 1 such that the analysis under Steps 2A and 2B would reach the same result. Therefore claim 20 is also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 21 recites “… generating, by the processor of the processing server, a notification of the second industry classification; and transmitting, by the transmitter of the processing server, the notification of the second industry classification to a computing system of the VASP .” The operation of notifying can be viewed as a mental process as human beings can determine that new information has been discovered that needs to be disseminated (MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(III)) and it can also be a viewed as a commercial interaction involving business relations (MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(II)(B)). The operations of generating a notification and transmitting the notification can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation amounts to necessary data outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) under Prong Two of Step 2A. However as the operations of generating a notification and transmitting are recited at a generally high level (MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) and would appear to require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions as neither of the operations as claimed or described in the written disclosure require any alterations in order to affect their execution. Therefore claim 21 is held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 22 recites “… receiving, by the receiver of the processing server from the computing system of the VASP, a dispute of the second industry classification, the dispute including additional data; and analyzing, by the processor of the processing server, at least the received transaction data and the additional data to determine an accuracy of the second industry classification .” Resolving disputes in a business related context can be viewed as a commercial interaction involving business relations (MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(II)(B)) and the analyzing can be viewed as a mental process (MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(III)). The operation of receiving a dispute amounts to necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the analyzing amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A do not form a practical application of the abstract idea. Given the high level of generality with regard to the receiving operation the receiving element is insufficient to amount to provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 22 is held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Claims 10-17 merely recite the system claimed in claims 1-8 and recites the same elements. Therefore the analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and under Step 2B would not differ from that found with regard to claims 1-8. As such claims 10-17 are also held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 JAMES D NIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5486. The examiner can normally be reached 5 AM to 2 PM Monday through Thursday. 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 at (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. /JAMES D NIGH/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 2 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 3 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 4 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 5 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 6 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 7 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 8 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 9 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 10 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 11 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 12 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 13 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 14 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 15 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 16 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 17 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 18 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/428,040 Page 19 Art Unit: 3699
Prosecution Insights