DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 6, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This communication is responsive to the submission filed March 6, 2026.
Claims 1, 11, 14, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant contends that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. First, Applicant contends that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea. Instead, they are directed towards a specific technical architecture for secure and confidential goods delivery monitoring and that it solves the technical problem of how to monitor goods delivery while guaranteeing security and confidentiality of data. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim is not directed towards an abstract idea. As noted in the final Office Action dated January 8, 2026, the claims recite multiple elements, such as receiving a delivery order of a buyer, creating a first dataset including physical properties of the delivery order, transmitting the first dataset to the seller, creating a second dataset including physical properties of the delivery order, receiving an order confirmation of the seller, checking for compliance between the first and second specifications of the delivery order, performing a second update of the second dataset based on the checking, transferring an update message, and performing a first update of the first dataset based on the update message. Such elements recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, such as commercial interactions as well managing relationships between the buyer and seller, and therefore the claims are directed towards abstract ideas. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to the next step.
Applicant next contends that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Specifically, the claims have been amended to recite a specific technical architecture, access restriction, and local validation. Examiner respectfully disagrees that such subject matter recites a practical application of the abstract ideas identified above. For example, a direct communication link between the buyer and seller is communication between the buyer and seller performed via computers. In other words, it is an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Further, restricting access to only the buyer and seller is an abstract idea as it relates to managing the relationship between the buyer and the seller rather than an additional element. Also, the local validation subject matter is also an abstract idea as performing the validation of whether the buyer’s records and the seller’s records for a transaction are consistent with a contract is an example of a commercial interaction. Therefore, the claim fails to recite additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Applicant next contends that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. However, as discussed above, the additional elements in the claims recite to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, such additional elements do not serve to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 25-27, filed March 6, 2026, with respect to claims 1-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of January 8, 2026, has been 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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 1-10 and 17-23 are directed towards a process, claims 11-13 are directed towards a machine, and claims 14-16 are directed towards a manufacture. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 1: Claim 1, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of checking that a buyer’s transaction details is consistent with a seller’s transaction details for a given transaction. In particular, the claim recites receiving a delivery order of a buyer relating to goods to be delivered by the seller to the buyer. The delivery order defines a quantity of goods to be delivered as a first specification. The claim then creates a first dataset and enters the quantity of goods to be delivered into the first dataset. The first dataset is part of a shared dataset between the buyer and the seller. The claim then transmits directly from the buyer to the seller the first dataset and is only accessible to the buyer and seller. The claim then recites that the seller creates a second dataset that is part of the shared dataset and performs a first update on the second dataset based on the first dataset. The first update includes entering a physical property of the first specification into the second dataset. The process receives an order confirmation of the seller, the order confirmation including a second specification of physical properties of the goods. The claim checks the second specification for compliance with the first specification using a contract. The method performs a second update on the second dataset by using a result of checking the second specification. The process directly transfers a first update message from the seller to the buyer. The claim performs a first update of the first dataset by means of the buyer using the first update message. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving a delivery order of the buyer via a first network by means of the first DLT node relating to goods to be delivered by the seller to the buyer, wherein the delivery order defines one or more physical properties of the goods to be delivered as a first specification, the physical properties of the first specification comprising at least one quantity of goods to be delivered,
creating a first dataset managed by the first DLT node and entering at least the one or more physical properties of the delivery order into the first dataset by means of the first DLT node by using the at least one smart contract, wherein the first dataset is a first part of a dataset shared between the first DLT node and the second DLT node,
directly transmitting, without broadcasting to a distributed network of nodes, at least the first dataset from the first DLT node to the second DLT node over a peer-to-peer communication link established between the first DLT node and the second DLT node, wherein the first dataset is accessible only to the first DLT node and the second DLT node,
creating a second dataset managed by the second DLT node, wherein the second dataset is a second part of the shared dataset, and performing a first update of the second dataset by means of the second DLT node based on the first dataset, wherein the first update comprises entering at least one or more of the physical properties of the first specification into the second dataset, the at least one or more entered physical properties of the first specification comprising the quantity of goods to be delivered,
receiving an order confirmation of the seller via the first network by means of the second DLT node, wherein the order confirmation comprises a second specification of the one or more physical properties of the goods to be delivered,
checking the second specification for compliance with the first specification by using the at least one smart contract, wherein the checking is performed locally by the second DLT node without requiring consensus from external network nodes,
performing a second update of the second dataset by means of the second DLT node by using a first result of checking the second specification,
directly transferring, without broadcasting to a distributed network of nodes, at least a first update message from the second DLT node to the first DLT node over the peer-to-peer communication link, and
performing a first update of the first dataset by means of the first DLT node by using the first update message.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a first DLT node, a second DLT node, and a smart contract. However, these additional elements are tools that are used to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a first DLT node, a second DLT node, and a smart contract. However, these additional elements are tools that are used to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 11: Claim 11 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. However, claim 11 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 also fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 14: Claim 14 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. However, claim 14 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 also fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 17: Claim 17, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of ensuring a transaction is performed according to specification. More specifically, the claim recites receiving, by the seller, a delivery order that defines a quantity of goods to be delivered. The buyer receives an order confirmation from the seller that defines a quantity of goods to be delivered. The buyer checks that the quantity of goods match. The buyer receives an outgoing goods log from the seller that has the quantity of goods. The buyer checks the quantity of goods in the outgoing log with the order. The buyer also checks a validation message that the number goods delivered is equal to the number of goods sent. The buyer registers the validation message. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by the seller by means of the first DLT node, a delivery order relating to goods to be delivered by the seller to the buyer, wherein the delivery order defines a quantity and/or a quality of goods to be delivered as a first specification;
receiving, by the buyer by means of the second DLT node, an order confirmation of the seller directly from the second DLT node over a peer-to-peer communication link established between the first DLT node and the second DLT node, without broadcasting to a distributed network of nodes, wherein the order confirmation comprises a second specification of the quantity and/or the quality of goods to be delivered;
checking, by the buyer by means of the second DLT node, the second specification for compliance with the first specification by using the at least one smart contract, wherein the checking is performed locally by the second DLT node without requiring consensus from external network nodes:
receiving, by the buyer by means of the second DLT node, an outgoing goods log from the seller directly over the peer-to-peer communication link, wherein the outgoing goods log comprises a sensor value for the quantity and/or the quality of goods of the outgoing goods according to the second specification, the sensor value quantifies the quantity and/or defines the quality of goods;
checking, by the buyer by means of the second DLT node, the sensor value of the outgoing goods log for consistency with the quantity and/or the quality of goods to be delivered within predefined first tolerances by using the at least one smart contract;
checking, by the buyer by means of the second DLT node, parameters of a validation message for validating the goods delivery by using the at least one smart contract, wherein the parameters comprise a quantity of goods and/or a quality to be validated, the parameter checking comprising checking the quantity and/or the quality of goods to be validated for consistency with the sensor value quantifying the quantity and/or defining the quality of goods delivered within a predefined second tolerance; and
registering, by the buyer by means of the second DLT node, the validation message by using the at least one smart contract when the quantity of goods and/or the quality to be validated is consistent with the sensor value quantifying the quantity and/or defining the quality of goods delivered within the predefined second tolerance, wherein the validation message is accessible only to the first DLT node and the second DLT node.
Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a first DLT node, a second DLT node, and a smart contract. However, these additional elements are tools that are used to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the additional elements fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 2-10, 12-13, 14-16, and 18-23: Claims 2-10, 12-13, 14-16, and 18-23 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2, 11, and 15 recite the abstract idea of logging goods by receiving the quantity of products scanned by the seller, checking whether the quantity of products scanned by the seller is consistent with the quantity ordered by the buyer, and updating the seller’s and buyer’s dataset, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 3, 13, and 16 recite the abstract idea of validating goods delivery by checking whether the quantity of goods received at the buyer is consistent with the quantity scanned by the seller and, if so, updating the buyer’s and seller’s dataset, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 4 recites the abstract idea of signing and validating signatures and the buyer and seller authenticate each other, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea to ensure that the quantity supplied and delivered are consistent, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of receiving the quantity of goods received and scanned by the buyer and comparing it to the quantity of goods scanned when sent and updating transaction logs based on the comparison, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of receiving an invoice from a seller, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of ensuring that the buyer data and seller data of the goods delivered match, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities as well as a Mental Process.
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of authenticated parties to the transaction before they perform operations, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of making a payment from a buyer account to a seller account and recording the transactions on a ledger, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea of performing a payment transaction by transferring money from a buyer account to a seller account, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of converting fiat currency to digital currency or vice versa, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of evaluating a buyer’s wallet to determine if there are sufficient funds for the transaction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities and a Mental Process.
Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of performing a verification if the buyer has sufficient funds, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities and a Mental Process.
Claim 22 recites the abstract idea that the buyer or seller makes a contract, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 23 recites the abstract idea that a second finance partner is part of the system, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0065761 discloses a system and method for ethical product certification related to production process and products inspection using blockchain smart contracts. One embodiment of the system is that an e-cash as a reward is transacted from the buyer to the supplier if the produced product complies with production and/or any other ethical rules and the pricing at which the financing is given is determined by the credit rating of the buyer and a mathematical formula that determines the supplier rating according to the rules of ethical compliance of suppliers.
U.S. Patent No. 7,069,234 discloses initiation of an agreement utilizing a network. First, a buyer and a seller are allowed to negotiate terms of trade utilizing a network. A form is received from the buyer indicating the terms of trade utilizing the network. Also received utilizing the network is an identifier of the buyer. Thereafter, the form is sent to a bank for assessing the credit of the buyer utilizing the network. The bank to which the credit application is sent is based on the identifier. Next, the form is forwarded to a seller along with the assessment of the credit of the buyer. At such time, the seller is permitted to digitally sign the form utilizing the network. The digitally signed form is then received from the seller utilizing the network after which a notice is sent to the buyer indicating that the digitally signed form has been received from the seller, thus initiating the agreement.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0189753 discloses a system configured for analyzing transactions between two or more parties and creating a digital token (also referred to as a hash), which can include processed and summarized information related to the transaction, to represent the evidence (or other information) associated with the transaction and store the token in a distributed ledger.
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 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 NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights