DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on April 6, 2026 for application 18477719
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that that the operations of "generat[ing] a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm" goes beyond the abstract idea of "Certain methods of organizing human activity". The operation of generat[ing] a unique interaction identifier is inherently computer-specific and cannot practically be considered as "certain methods of organizing human activity". Applicant argues that the applicant’s specification on page 13, lines 5-19 describes how the processor 134 is configured to record the interaction on the blockchain network 146 and if the blockchain management flag 144 is active, the processor 134 is configured to hold the request 114 to record the interaction on the blockchain network 146 for the hold duration 142…, hence the claims are directed to a specific technological process involving a processor, memory, and a blockchain network. Also Applicant argues that the Specification at page 3, line 28 - page 4, line 11 discloses improvements to the technology such as allowing the user to cancel the interaction reduces the chance of losing data associated with the interaction if it is accidentally sent to the wrong address, thereby improving data security for the user and second, the disclosed systems and methods provide an improvement to the underlying technology via the entity server which is configured to provide the user with an option to cancel the request to record the interaction on the blockchain.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101 and after careful reconsideration, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended limitations of Claim 1, the claims are still reciting the concept of determining whether to record or store an interaction between users. Specifically, the following limitations “receive a request from a first user to record the interaction between the first user and the second user; store information associated with the interaction in the data log wherein the information associated with the interaction comprises a timestamp of the interaction; determine whether a blockchain management flag is active or inactive; record the unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction in the data log in the memory…and wherein the unique interaction identifier comprises the timestamp of the interaction; and determine whether a cancel request is received, wherein: (i) if the cancel request is received, cancel the request to record the interaction and the interaction is not recorded, and if the cancel request is not received, hold the request to record the interaction for at least a portion of the hold duration, and wherein before the hold duration expires, determine whether a force push request is received, and wherein: if the force push request is received, record the interaction on the blockchain network before the hold duration expires; and if the force push request is not received, record the interaction after the hold duration expires” is still being placed within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” classified under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, as part of a transaction because the specific series of steps are performing an interaction between a first user and a second user, storing the information and determining whether a cancel request is received to either recording the interaction or delaying the request to record the interaction. Now the specific limitation “generate a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm” is still being categorized within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” because a unique interaction identifier is being generated using a hashing algorithm, basically using mathematical operations to manipulate data. The process of hashing is entirely conventional and these limitations comprise using mathematical operations to manipulate data, which is an abstract idea. Also, the judicial exception is still not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea of determining whether to record or store an interaction between users. The use of “a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device” to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The use of hashing is considered improving data security but not the overall system comprising the blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device. Examiner believes the overall concept of holding, canceling, or confirming transactions before they are permanently recorded on a blockchain is not considered an improvement to the blockchain technology but simply executing or implementing the steps of holding, canceling, or confirming transactions using the technology recited. Also, Examiner argues that allowing the user to cancel the interaction is improving data security for the user but does not reflect improvement to the disclosed systems or the underlying technology via the entity server.
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 1-20 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, claims 1-8 and 17-20 are directed to a system, claims 9-16 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite determining whether to record or store an interaction between users which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites the specific limitations “receive a request from a first user to record the interaction between the first user and the second user; store information associated with the interaction in the data log wherein the information associated with the interaction comprises a timestamp of the interaction; determine whether a blockchain management flag is active or inactive; record the unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction in the data log in the memory…and wherein the unique interaction identifier comprises the timestamp of the interaction; and determine whether a cancel request is received, wherein: (i) if the cancel request is received, cancel the request to record the interaction and the interaction is not recorded, and if the cancel request is not received, hold the request to record the interaction for at least a portion of the hold duration, and wherein before the hold duration expires, determine whether a force push request is received, and wherein: if the force push request is received, record the interaction on the blockchain network before the hold duration expires; and if the force push request is not received, record the interaction after the hold duration expires” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, as part of a transaction. (2) Also, the limitations “generate a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm” are grouped within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in the (1) first case, the claims involve a series of steps for performing an interaction between a first user and a second user, storing the information and determining whether a cancel request is received to either recording the interaction or delaying the request to record the interaction. (2) second case, a unique interaction identifier is hashed utilizing a cryptographic hash function, basically using mathematical operations to manipulate data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of “a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device” to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device perform the steps or functions of Claim 1. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). 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 an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of determining whether an interaction between users should be recorded. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining whether an interaction between users should be recorded. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe details to determining whether to record the interaction after the hold duration expires and before the hold duration expires. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a smart contract”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights