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 .
Note: Examiner Shaikh is now examining this application moving forward.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an amendment received on 1/21/26 for patent application 18/492,515.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2,6-8, 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-12 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Under Step 2A, Prong One, amended claim 1 is not "directed to" a judicial exception because it does not recite a mathematical concept, a mental process, or a certain method of organizing human activity; instead, it is focused on a specific technological implementation that improves the functioning of a distributed ledger system. The claim requires: (i) writing payables data to a blockchain as per-transaction and grouped blocks, each block comprising a cryptographically signed record with immutable and auditable storage; (ii) reformatting data into a standardized structure explicitly compatible with a smart-contract protocol for automated reconciliation; (iii) monitoring newly appended blocks by a smart contract and initiating reconciliation responsive to block detection; and (iv) deterministic, field-based reconciliation followed by programmatic exception resolution and status reporting. These limitations define particular data structures, security mechanisms, and event-driven execution tied to blockchain append operations, which are technological solutions to ledger integrity, interoperability, and latency problems and not instructions for economic behavior or mental steps. Accordingly, the character of the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement in computer technology (distributed ledger data handling and smart-contract execution), and not to an abstract idea.
Examiner Response
It appears that applicant is arguing that the limitations ( writing, by the computer program, the payables data to a blockchain as a set of linked blocks, each block comprising a cryptographically signed record of a group of transactions as blockchain blocks comprising per-transaction blocks and grouped transaction blocks, wherein the blockchain blocks each comprise a cryptographically signed record, wherein the blockchain is configured to provide immutable and auditable storage of transaction data, wherein grouped transaction blocks are grouped based on one or more of a payable accounting legal entity, a payable date, and a payment brand;
reformatting, by the computer program, the payables data before writing the payables data to the blockchain using a wrapper computer program configured to reformat the payables data into a standard format for the blockchain; generating, by the smart contract and based on the reconciling, a list of matched transactions and unmatched transactions;
monitoring, by a smart contract on the blockchain executed by one or more processors, the blockchain for the payables data and the receivables data and, responsive to detecting a newly appended block comprising the payables data or the receivables data, initiating reconciliation;
determining, by the smart contract, for each unmatched transaction, a root cause and automatically resolving an exception to the root cause when resolvable; and
providing, by the smart contract, a status of matched and unmatched transactions to the merchant) are not reciting the identified abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations (writing the payables data, wherein grouped transaction blocks are grouped based on one or more of a payable accounting legal entity, a payable date, and a payment brand;
reformatting, the payables data, to reformat the payables data into a standard format;
monitoring, by a contract for the payables data and the receivables data, initiating reconciliation;
determining, by the contract, for each unmatched transaction, a root cause and automatically resolving an exception to the root cause when resolvable; and
providing, by the contract, a status of matched and unmatched transactions to the merchant) is part of the identified abstract idea.
The additional limitations (the computer program, the blockchain comprising blocks that are cryptographically signed and the a newly appended block, smart contract) are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the amendments submitted herewith integrate the purported abstract idea into a practical technological application. The claim's cryptographically signed blocks and immutability/auditability requirements impose specific data structure and security constraints inherent to distributed ledgers; the standardized data structure compatible with a smart-contract protocol solves a data-heterogeneity and determinism problem for on-chain execution; the smart contract's monitoring of newly appended blocks and reconciliation triggered by block detection addresses a network-coordination and latency problem by binding compute to ledger-append events; and the root-cause determination with automatic exception resolution by the smart contract converts reconciliation from a mere reporting function into an on-chain transactional workflow that operates within the constraints of the blockchain system. Collectively, these elements constitute a concrete improvement in the functioning of a distributed computing system and its security, rather than an abstract method of commerce as characterized in the Office Action.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is pointed to MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement
Now turning to the instant specification, paras 30-31, 33, 39-40 are reproduced below:
[0022] Embodiments may match receivables with payables, and may
reconcile the data in near real time. Embodiments may provide two nodes -
one for receiving merchant data, and one for receiving payment brand data. For
each transaction, a separate block may be generated, and data reconciliation
may occur for each of the blocks.
[0033] In another embodiment, financial institution backend 110, payment
brand backend 120, and merchant backend 130 may all participate as nodes in a
distributed ledger network (not shown), in which financial institution backend
110, payment brand backend 120, and merchant backend 130 may submit
respective data to a local copy of a distributed ledger, such as blockchain 150.
[0039] In one embodiment, the financial institution backend may reformat
the payables data using a wrapper computer program before writing the
payables data to the blockchain.
[0040] In an alternate embodiment, the merchant backend may write the
payables data to its copy of a distributed ledger
[0030] One or more smart contract 155 may automatically reconcile the
payables data and the receivables data, and may generate a report of reconciled
transactions and unreconciled transactions. In one embodiment, smart
contract(s) 155 may determine the root cause for any unreconciled transactions
and may automatically resolve any exceptions.
[0031] Financial institution backend computer program 115 may be
provided with wrapper generator 116, which may be a computer program that
may reformat payables data and/or receivables data for blockchain 150.
It can be seen from the instant specification that there is no technical explanation of the asserted improvement (network coordination and latency problem) and reflected in the claims. The additional elements( the blockchain is operating in its ordinary capacity , a blockchain is designed to store data in an immutable ledger; the wrapper computer program is commonly understood in computer science as code that surrounds another piece of code to make it easier to use, and the cryptographically signing of a block on a blockchain and appending a block to a blockchain are commonly understood functions of a blockchain) all of which are being used to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore there are no additional elements in the claims that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#3
Even if the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, the claim recites an inventive concept beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The specific combination (cryptographically signed per-transaction and grouped blocks providing immutable, auditable storage; a standardized data structure explicitly compatible with smart-contract automated reconciliation; smart-contract monitoring of block append events to initiate reconciliation; and on-chain exception root-cause determination with automated resolution) is not established by evidence in the record as routine or conventional. To the contrary, the Office Action's "Prior Art Not Relied Upon" discussion acknowledges that the references appear to fail to disclose, at a minimum, the standardized data structure compatible with a smart-contract protocol for automated reconciliation, among other limitations. While novelty alone is not dispositive of eligibility, the absence of these concrete, protocol-specific features in the cited art undercuts any assertion that the claimed combination is "well-understood, routine, and conventional," particularly in the claimed event-driven, on-chain workflow.
Finally, the Office Action previously criticized that additional elements were recited at "a high degree of generality." The present claim cures that concern by specifying how data are secured, how data are structured for on-chain use, when and how smart-contract reconciliation is triggered (i.e., responsive to detection of newly appended blocks), precisely what fields are compared to reconcile, and how exceptions are programmatically resolved on-chain. These concrete, technical constraints meaningfully limit the claim to a particular distributed-ledger implementation and improve the functioning of the computing system itself. For these reasons, applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the §101 rejection of amended claim 1 and its dependents.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant misapprehends when a Berkheimer analysis is required under current examination policy. Simply put, Examiner is not required under current Examination policy to evaluate under Step 2B, whether additional elements constitute “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” [“WURC activities”] unless an additional element(s) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). Here, the condition precedent was not met and the Non-Final Office Action determined the additional elements were no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, Examiner was not required to determine a Berkheimer analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). (See Section 101 rejection below).
The rejection 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, 3-5, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter.
(See, Alice and MPEP §2106)
In sum, claims 1, 3-5, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. $101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP § 2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 9-13). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP $2106.04) Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the abstract idea of:
receiving, by a financial institution, payables data comprising a plurality of transactions from a merchant, wherein each of the plurality of transactions in the payables data comprises a transaction identifier, a merchant identifier, a payable transaction amount, and a payables currency;
encrypting, the payables data prior to transmission and storage;
writing, the payables data wherein grouped transaction are grouped based on one or more of a payable accounting legal entity, a payable date, and a payment brand;
sending, the payables data to the payment brand;
generating, receivables data for each of the plurality of transactions based on the payables data, the receivables data comprising the transaction identifier, a receivable transaction amount, and a receivable currency;
receiving, the receivables data;
reformatting, the payables data before writing the payables data, to reformat the payables data into a standard format;
writing, the receivables data in the standard format;
monitoring, the payables data and the receivables data, initiating reconciliation;
reconciling, the plurality of transactions in the payables data with the receivables data using the transaction identifier in real time as payables and the receivables data is written, wherein the reconciling comprising comparing, for each transaction, the transaction identifier, the payable transaction amount, the receivable transaction amount, the payables currency, and the receivable currency;
generating, based on the reconciling, a list of matched transactions and unmatched transactions; and
determining, for each unmatched transaction, a root cause and automatically resolving an exception to the root cause when resolvable; and
providing, a status of matched and unmatched transactions to the merchant;
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP § 2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes the sub-category of commercial interactions involving sales activities or behaviors (e.g., in the claims: performing an accounting function of processing various merchant transactions using reconciled payables data and receivables data to determine matched and unmatched transactions, where the payables data is reformatted and is written along with receivables data to a blockchain, where the transactions are a plurality of goods and/or services purchase
transactions between various customers and various merchants, where each transaction has an associated transaction identifier, transaction amount and a payables currency, where the transactions are listed as being matched or unmatched based on reconciling payables data transactions with receivables data).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP $2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: at least one "computer program", a financial institution "backend" having at least one "processor", a "blockchain" where the "blockchain" may include one or more "smart contract" executed by the at least one "processor" to accomplish various claimed functions and the "blockchain" may include a “appending a new block”, a "cryptographic algorithm" executing with the "computer program", a "secure, authenticated channel", and a "machine learning engine", do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., "apply it") on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a computer network or a data network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/reformatting/matching/analysis steps, data writing, storage steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, and/or a computer or communication network or a distributed ledger or blockchain network. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something "significantly more" than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP $2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., "apply it") on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, and/or on a computer network or a data network or a distributed ledger (blockchain) network or a communication network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something "significantly more." (See e.g., MPEP § 2106.05 I.A.)
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 3-5 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that data payables data for the transactions is sent to the blockchain for recording the transactions, or is sent to a payment brand (payment network) in a certain format and the payment brand sends the payables data to an issuer for payment, which is simply following various rules for sending/recording/formatting data in a payment process, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a "tool" under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§ 2106.04, 2106.05)
Therefore, these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a "tool" under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 9-12 simply further refine the machine learning engine additional element discussed above, by requiring that various historical payment data, or unmatched payment data (corrective action data), or data representing various types of transactions is used to train the machine learning engine additional element. However, the specification does not describe any technological improvement being made to the machine learning engine, but rather, simply that the various data is used to train it. (See e.g., Spec. paras 032, 050) Therefore, these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a "tool" under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights