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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 10, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on September 10, 2026. Claims 1-21 were pending in the Application. Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16, and 20 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claims 19 and 21 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 the following:
The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. The claim limitations may, at most, involve an exception, but they do not recite the exception. Rather, 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, store a secure record of items identified as re-sellable in real time, and retrain the model based on subsequent monitoring of transfers of the items determined to be re-sellable.
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 and specifically to machine learning models that may be used to determine whether items, which may not previously have been analyzed by the model, should be considered re-sellable and therefore tracked.
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 USP TO on July 17, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the July 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 USP TO on July 17, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the July. The July 2024 Guidance explains that Claim 3 reflects an improvement to the technical field of network intrusion detection, and that the asserted improvement is present in the associated specification.
Claim 1 of the present Application is analogous to Claim 3 of Example 47, in that Claim 1 recites taking real time actions based upon an output from a machine learning model generated using real time telematics data. For example, 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. 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.
Applicant's Claims Are Directed to "Significantly More" Than the Abstract Idea. 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.
Although different in scope, independent Claims 11 and 20 include similar limitations. In summary, the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because it was not well-understood, routine, or conventional to perform the steps discussed above.
Although different in scope, independent Claims 11 and 20 include similar limitations. In summary, the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because it was not well-understood, routine, or conventional to perform the steps discussed above.
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 “retrieving 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 considered re-sellable; training the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured to analyze an item identifier or an item description and output whether the item is re-sellable; 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, in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data from the transaction message, an electronic 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 electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain; after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain; and retraining the machine learning model based on the determination that the transfer has been recorded”, 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-implemented method for using a machine learning model … within a blockchain, the 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: …”, “training the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured”, “a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “an electronic token”, “recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain”, and “retraining the machine learning model”, 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.”
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 that uses a machine learning model … within a blockchain, the 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 the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured”, “a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “an electronic token”, “recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain”, and “retraining the machine learning model”, 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., “training the machine learning model based on the training data” and “a blockchain”). 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 for using a machine learning model … within a blockchain, 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 the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured”, “a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “an electronic token”, “recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain”, and “retraining the machine learning model”, 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 storage media having computer-executable instructions 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. § 103, after further consideration and search, no prior art was found that teaches, suggests, and/or discloses these limitations and/or some combination thereof:
"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, in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data from the transaction message, an electronic 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 electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”;
“after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain”; and
“retraining the machine learning model based on the determination that the transfer has been recorded”.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being rescinded is maintained.
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 “retrieving 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 considered re-sellable; training the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured to analyze an item identifier or an item description and output whether the item is re-sellable; 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, in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data from the transaction message, an electronic 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 electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain; after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain; and retraining the machine learning model based on the determination that the transfer has been recorded”. 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-implemented method for using a machine learning model … within a blockchain, the 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: …”, “training the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured”, “a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “an electronic token”, “recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain”, and “retraining the machine learning model”, 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 in communication with at least one memory” and “a machine learning model”). 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 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 that uses a machine learning model … within a blockchain, the 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 the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured”, “a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “an electronic token”, “recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain”, and “retraining the machine learning model”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, these 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., “training the machine learning model based on the training data” and “a blockchain”). 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 for using a machine learning model … within a blockchain, 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 the machine learning model based on the training data, the trained machine learning model configured”, “a payment interchange network”, “inputting the captured transaction data into the trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model outputting”, “an electronic token”, “recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain in real time with respect to capturing the transaction data, wherein the generated token is unalterable prior to being recorded in the blockchain”, “after recording the generated electronic token in the blockchain, determining, by continually monitoring the blockchain, that a transfer of the generated electronic token from the user to another entity has been recorded on the blockchain”, and “retraining the machine learning model”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, these 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 storage media having computer-executable instructions” and “retraining the machine learning model”). 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 new additional elements of “a user interface” and “at least one buyer computing device”, 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.
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:
Juntilla et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210135888 A1) – Methods And Systems For Tracking Ownership Of Goods With A Blockchain
Juntilla discloses a computerized method for digitally tracking ownership of goods with a blockchain includes the steps of providing a blockchain. The blockchain includes a set of blockchain ownership records provided in a chronological mathematical proof format such that specified data exists in a specific chronological order. The method includes the step of saving a smart contract that references a real-world object in the blockchain. The smart contract includes a tool for tracking ownership of the real-world object. With a computer application, the method enables an owner of the real-world object to modify an owner data portion of the smart contract to a new owner entity to change the ownership of the real-world object in the blockchain. The method includes the step of updating the owner data portion of the smart contract in the blockchain to include the new owner entity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN R CHISM whose telephone number is (571)272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at (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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/STEVEN R CHISM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
October 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights