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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on March 23, 2026. Claims 1-21 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claim 21 has been canceled, with claim 19 remaining canceled. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 11. Thus claims 1-18 and 20 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A; the Office Action alleges, at Pages 11-13, that the claims fall within the "Methods of Organizing a Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, Applicant respectfully disagrees; the claim limitations may, at most, involve an exception, but they do not recite the exception; the claim limitations recite a computer system that leverages machine learning and blockchain technology to identify from transaction messages submitted over an interchange network in real time whether an item is re-sellable and securely store a record of the item and its value if the item is determined to be re-sellable, and accordingly, the claims are respectfully submitted to be patentable under the first prong of step 2A; even assuming arguendo that the independent claims recite an enumerated judicial exception, the present claims are subject-matter eligible under the second prong of Step 2A; claim 1 improves the functioning of item tracking technology; Claim 1 of the present Application is analogous to Claim 3 of Example 47 ("Anomaly Detection") in "July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples" published by the USPTO on July 17, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the July 2024 Guidance"); claim 1 recites taking real time actions based upon an output from a machine learning model generated using real time telematics data; the system recited in Claim 1 determines whether to modify a blockchain in real time based on an output from an machine learning model evaluating real-time transaction data, and this improves an ability of the system to securely store data by ensuring that the blockchain reflects an actual current status of the item; in this case, "the specification sets forth an improvement in technology ... [and] the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification," which is sufficient to establish a practical application (See MPEP 2104.04(d)(l)); even assuming for the sake of argument that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims are directed to something "significantly more" than the idea itself; in the instant application, the pending claims clearly recite more than well-understood, routine, or conventional functionality of distributed ledger tracking technology; the fact that the pending claims overcome the cited art strengthens the conclusion that these steps are not well understood, routine, and conventional; and the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because it was not well-understood, routine, or conventional to perform the steps of the instant application”.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20250124435 A1, para 2), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘435 A1, para 2), discloses that the invention relates to tracking items to determine whether physical items are capable of being easily recycled or sold to another user, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 11 provides additional evidence, and recites “a computer-implemented method performed by a computer system including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the computer-implemented method comprising: retrieving training data, the training data including (i) a plurality of item identifiers, and (ii) for each of the plurality of item identifiers, data indicating whether an item associated with the item identifier is re-sellable; training a machine learning model based on the training data; capturing transaction data from a transaction message transmitted over a payment interchange network in real time, the transaction data identifying (i) a user, (ii) at least one item, and (iii) at least one transaction value; inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting in real time whether the at least one item is a re-sellable item based on the input captured transaction data; receiving, from the machine learning model, an output indicating that the at least one item is a re-sellable item; in response to receiving the output from the machine learning model indicating that the at least one item is a re-sellable item, generating a token associated with the at least one item, the token including (i) a user identifier associated with the user, (ii) an item identifier associated with the at least one item, and (iii) an item value associated with the at least one item and determined based on the at least one transaction value; recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain; in response to receiving a request from a user device associated with the user, parsing the blockchain to identify tokens including the user identifier, the identified tokens including the generated token; and generating user interface data defining a user interface that includes data extracted from the identified tokens including the at least one item and the item value associated with the at least one item; and transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”, which represent the abstract idea of “tracking re-sellable items”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a computer system including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory”, “training a machine learning model based on the training data”, “transmitted over a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “a user device associated with the user”, “generating user interface data defining a user interface”, and “transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “tracking re-sellable items”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “tracking re-sellable items”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “tracking re-sellable items”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a tracking re-sellable items concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 11 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of “tracking re-sellable items”, as well as the additional elements of “a computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the steps of: …”, “training a machine learning model based on the training data”, “transmitted over a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “a user device associated with the user”, “generating user interface data defining a user interface”, and “transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “tracking re-sellable items” using computer technology (e.g., “a user device” and “a memory”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 20 also recites the abstract idea of “tracking re-sellable items”, as well as the additional elements of “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the computer-executable instructions cause at least one processor to perform the steps of: …”, “training a machine learning model based on the training data”, “transmitted over a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “a user device associated with the user”, “generating user interface data defining a user interface”, and “transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “tracking re-sellable items” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “training a machine learning model based on the training data”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 20 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated December 22, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Claim 1 recites “retrieving training data, the training data including (i) a plurality of item identifiers, and (ii) for each of the plurality of item identifiers, data indicating whether an item associated with the item identifier is re-sellable”, which is directed to the machine learning model being trained using training data including items and labels indicating whether the items are re-sellable and/or recyclable …, and finds support in the specification, (PG Pub US 20250124435 A1, paras 32 and 64). Therefore, the written description is met. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 11 and 20. Dependent claims 2-10, which depend from claim 1, and dependent claims 12-18, which depend from claim 11, also overcome the current rejection under 112(a), New Matter. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated December 22, 2025.
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 1-18 and 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 1-10 are directed to a “system”; claims 11-18 are directed to a “method”; and claim 20 is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage media”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites “tracking re-sellable items”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 11 recites “a computer-implemented method performed by a computer system including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the computer-implemented method comprising: retrieving training data, the training data including (i) a plurality of item identifiers, and (ii) for each of the plurality of item identifiers, data indicating whether an item associated with the item identifier is re-sellable; training a machine learning model based on the training data; capturing transaction data from a transaction message transmitted over a payment interchange network in real time, the transaction data identifying (i) a user, (ii) at least one item, and (iii) at least one transaction value; inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting in real time whether the at least one item is a re-sellable item based on the input captured transaction data; receiving, from the machine learning model, an output indicating that the at least one item is a re-sellable item; in response to receiving the output from the machine learning model indicating that the at least one item is a re-sellable item, generating a token associated with the at least one item, the token including (i) a user identifier associated with the user, (ii) an item identifier associated with the at least one item, and (iii) an item value associated with the at least one item and determined based on the at least one transaction value; recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain; in response to receiving a request from a user device associated with the user, parsing the blockchain to identify tokens including the user identifier, the identified tokens including the generated token; and generating user interface data defining a user interface that includes data extracted from the identified tokens including the at least one item and the item value associated with the at least one item; and transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a computer system including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory”, “training a machine learning model based on the training data”, “transmitted over a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “a user device associated with the user”, “generating user interface data defining a user interface”, and “transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “tracking re-sellable items” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “at least one memory”). Therefore, the use of this additional element does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 11 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of “tracking re-sellable items”, as well as the additional elements of “a computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the steps of: …”, “training a machine learning model based on the training data”, “transmitted over a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “a user device associated with the user”, “generating user interface data defining a user interface”, and “transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “tracking re-sellable items” using computer technology (e.g., “a user device” and “at least one memory”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 20 also recites the abstract idea of “tracking re-sellable items”, as well as the additional elements of “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the computer-executable instructions cause at least one processor to perform the steps of: …”, “training a machine learning model based on the training data”, “transmitted over a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “recording the generated token in a blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “a user device associated with the user”, “generating user interface data defining a user interface”, and “transmitting the user interface data to the user device to cause the user device to display the user interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “tracking re-sellable items” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “training a machine learning model based on the training data”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 20 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 further describe the abstract idea of “tracking re-sellable items”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 20.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, and 14-17 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “tracking re-sellable items”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite a new additional element of “at least one buyer computing device”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite a new additional element of “a third party computing device”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 10 recites new additional elements of “a quick response (QR) code and/or a bar code”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 1-18 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
O’Connor et al (U. S. Patent No. 11763360 B1) – Intelligent Identifying Items For Resale
O’Connor discloses intelligently identifying items for resale based on digital records of past purchases. A computing system of a payment processing service can analyze digital record(s) of a user that are representative of previous purchase(s) of the user. Based at least partly on analyzing the digital record(s), an item previously purchased by the user can be identified as a candidate for resale to another user. The computing system can monitor marketplace(s), and can determine, based at least partly on monitoring the marketplace(s), item information for the item. The computing system can create, based at least partly on the item information, a listing for an ecommerce channel that enables the user to sell the item. The listing can include an actuation mechanism that enables the other user to purchase the item, a transaction for which can be processed by the payment processing service.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights