DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in reply to the remarks/arguments for Application 18/447,474 filed on 10 September 2025.
Claims 2, 13-20, and 22 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 21, 23-25, and 27 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the basis that the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
1. Applicant argues that the subject matter of claim 21 does not pertain to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 21 is directed towards facilitating providing means of transfer assurance when engaging in cryptocurrency transactions with a first entity. Claim 21 is directed to the abstract idea of merely following rules and instructions to perform an commercial/economic practice comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving (“pre-authorized request to release a reserved data resource”), verifying (“first/second account”), calculating (“reserving first data resources equal to the transaction amount”), transmitting (“approval message”) data/information associated with a financial and/or commercial transaction in an automated manner, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (marketing; sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 21 recites: “receiving a pre-authorization request from a second entity, the pre-authorization request defining a first account, a transaction amount, and a blockchain address; verifying that the first account defines at least an amount of first data resources equal to the transaction amount; verifying that a second account defines at least a first amount of cryptocurrency having a value that is equal to the transaction amount, the second account being associated with the first account; reserving a first portion of the first data resources, the first portion of the first data resources being equal to the transaction amount; sending a response to the pre-authorization request, the response including an approval message”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Hence, claim 21 is not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant argues that even if the claims recite an enumerated abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, the specific language integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of that alleged abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as an “processor”, “blockchain”, represent the use of a computer/computer-related device as a tool to perform an abstract idea (“business administrative task”) and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of merely following rules and instructions to perform an commercial/economic practice comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving (“pre-authorized request to release a reserved data resource”), verifying (“first/second account”), calculating (“reserving first data resources equal to the transaction amount”), transmitting (“approval message”) data/information associated with a financial and/or commercial transaction in an automated manner. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
3. Applicant argues that the claims reflect improvement over conventional electronic transfer processing technologies by facilitating use of blockchain technology and circumventing the time consuming blockchain consensus mechanism required by blockchain to finalize a transaction, resulting in faster transaction processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements recited – using a computer device to perform the steps comprising: “verifying, by the computer, that a second account defines at least a first amount of cryptocurrency having a value that is equal to the transaction amount, the second account being associated with the first account”, and “verifying that a transferred amount of cryptocurrency has been received at the blockchain address from the second account”, do not describe how the blockchain consensus mechanism required by a blockchain to finalize or confirm a transaction, is transformed or improved upon as argued by Applicant, such that it operates or performs differently in manner than which it was designed to function. The claims merely states that data is verified without any detail as to how the verification is being done by the technology (e.g., computer, blockchain) involved in a manner reflective of an improvement or transformation of the elements involved.
The computer device itself is recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool (intermediary) to perform the steps recited such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Moreover, nothing in the steps involve an improvement to the conventional functioning of a computer or to any other technology, applying or using a judicial exception with, or, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing aside from merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea while also generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
There is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed. There are no actual improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
4. Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and adds specific limitations that is other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of electronic transfer processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When analyzed under step 2B, 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 claims merely describe the concept of providing means of transfer assurance when engaging in cryptocurrency transactions with a first entity while merely following rules and instructions to perform an commercial/economic practice comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving (“pre-authorized request to release a reserved data resource”), verifying (“first/second account”), calculating (“reserving first data resources equal to the transaction amount”), transmitting (“approval message”) data and/or information associated with a financial and/or commercial transaction in an automated manner,, using computer technology. 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)). Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
B. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Navarro et al., US 2023/0401572 in view of Mathew et al., US 11,710,107.
1. Applicant submits that the Navarro reference (US 2023/0401572) is not prior art as the disclosure was owned by the same entity (The Toronto Dominion Bank) as the present application before the effective filing data of the present application.
Examiner respectfully agrees. Accordingly, the rejection of the above claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn.
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 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, exemplary method claim 21 is directed towards providing means of transfer assurance when engaging in cryptocurrency transactions with a first entity. Claim 21 is directed to the abstract idea of merely following rules and instructions to perform an commercial/economic practice comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving (“pre-authorized request to release a reserved data resource”), verifying (“first/second account”), calculating (“reserving first data resources equal to the transaction amount”), transmitting (“approval message”) data and/or information associated with a financial and/or commercial transaction in an automated manner, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (marketing; sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 21 recites: “receiving, …, a pre-authorization request from a second entity device, the pre-authorization request defining a first account, a transaction amount, and a blockchain address;
verifying, …, that the first account defines at least an amount of first data resources equal to the transaction amount;
verifying, …, that a second account defines at least a first amount of cryptocurrency having a value that is equal to the transaction amount, the second account being associated with the first account;
reserving, …, a first portion of the first data resources, the first portion of the first data resources being equal to the transaction amount;
sending a response to the pre-authorization request to the second entity device, the response including an approval message;
verifying that a transferred amount of cryptocurrency has been received at the blockchain address from the second account;
determining that the transferred amount of cryptocurrency has a value that is greater than or equal to the transaction amount;
in response to determining that the transferred amount of cryptocurrency has a value that is greater than or equal to the transaction amount, removing the reservation of the first portion of the first data resources”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Hence, claim 21 is not patent eligible.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as an “processor”, “computer”, “blockchain”, represent the use of a computer/computer-related device as a tool to perform an abstract idea (“business administrative task”) and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of merely following rules and instructions to perform an commercial/economic practice comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving (“pre-authorized request to release a reserved data resource”), verifying (“first/second account”), calculating (“reserving first data resources equal to the transaction amount”), transmitting (“approval message”)
data/information associated with a financial and/or commercial transaction in an automated manner.
When analyzed under step 2B, 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 claims merely describe the concept of providing means of transfer assurance when engaging in cryptocurrency transactions with a first entity while merely following rules and instructions to perform an commercial/economic practice comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving (“pre-authorized request to release a reserved data resource”), verifying (“first/second account”), calculating (“reserving first data resources equal to the transaction amount”), transmitting (“approval message”)
data/information associated with a financial and/or commercial transaction in an automated manner, using computer technology. 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)).
Additionally, with regard to claim 21, in this instance, no computer processor device is recited in the claim to carry out the recited functionality of the invention. In this instance, it is not clear whether any of the instructions are in executable form and therefore there is no practical application.
As such, the claim is non-statutory because the body of the claims do not contain any limitations indicating the structure of the device and does not recite any machine or transformation (insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation either express or inherent) – no specific computer or processing device recited to carry out the claimed steps or execute computer code instructions is recited. See Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos (Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices).
Independent claim 1 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 21 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 1 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 21 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 21 applies to claim 1 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 22-28 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the s-cope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grassadonia et al. (US 10,055,715 B1) discloses a cryptocurrency payment network. The present technology provides a payment service for providing financial transactions between a customer and
merchant wherein the customer can pay in any currency and the merchant can be paid in any currency. Furthermore, the present technology supports payment using cryptocurrency, while improving such transactions in a way that takes advantage of benefits of such transactions while overcoming drawbacks such as delays in processing.
SELLS et al. (US 2022/0051219 A1) discloses a cryptocurrency payment and distribution platform. In embodiments of the present disclosure, a third-party cryptocurrency payment and distribution platform is provided that may facilitate the orchestration of fiat-to-cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency-to-fiat currency exchanges without necessitating a bank's direct involvement in the cryptocurrency transactions, but rather enables banks and other entities to provide access to cryptocurrency services
for their customers through an external entity.
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. 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.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692