DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application per claims listing and remarks filed 01/02/2026, no claims have been amended. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent claims reciting device, method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims respectively. Claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claims listing and the remarks filed by the Applicant on 02 JANUARY 2026 for its original application of 06 NOVEMBER 2023 that is titled: “Device, Method, and Computer Readable Medium for Large Scale Electronic Processing”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
Specification Objections
The Specification is objected to because of the following informalities ---
Acronym SWIFT recited on Pages 34 and 35 (of 47 pages) has not been shown in its expanded form as to what it stands for; and SWIFT is also recited twice on FIG. 5. Examiner suggests adding its full form at the first recitation on Page 34.
Use of word “oracle” (synonyms include prophet, seer, visionary, predictor, guru, etc.) as in “oracle 506” on Pages 17, 31, 32 & 33 as well as “Oracle 506” in FIG. 5; and it is not clear to Examiner if this actually refers to the corporation “Oracle” that provides a comprehensive suite of integrated cloud applications (SaaS), cloud infrastructure (OCI), and database technologies (specifically the #1 enterprise database) to help businesses manage data, automate processes, and run enterprise workloads; as well as corporation “Oracle” provides servers, storage, and specialized, integrated hardware designed to optimize database and application performance. Examiner notes that “oracle 506” is described on Page 17 as {“An oracle 506 is a computer system that is agreed upon prior to executing any contracts. The role of the oracle 506 may include to provide the agreed upon market data inputs used by the trading entities to operate the ongoing calculations and exposures.”}, and Examiner asks the Applicant as to why “oracle 506” could not be recited as “computer 506” or “computer system 506” or another synonym of word “oracle” (see above) in its place. If the instant application’s use of “oracle 506” is with reference to corporation “Oracle” hardware and/or software, then proper trademark notation needs to be given.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in previous RCE on 08/18/2025 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent device, method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 11: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a
series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1--YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method for a device in a blockchain network comprised of the following steps: adding at least one transaction block to a chained sequence of one or more blocks, wherein the transaction block includes a cryptographic timestamp, a hash pointer to a previous block, and a digitally signed validation record; receiving a request message having the data of the electronic transaction, wherein the request message includes a digital signature verifying an identity of a sender and a dynamically generated transaction risk score based on real-time volatility analysis retrieved from a financial data source; broadcasting an alert message alerting of the request message, wherein the alert message includes an indicator of whether the transaction requires multi-party collateral validation process; receiving a response message having counter transaction data that relates to the alert message, wherein the counter transaction data is verified using a cryptographic hash-based authentication protocol and an consensus-based approval mechanism; determining a match between the transaction data and the counter transaction data, wherein determining the match includes validating the transaction against a predefined smart contract-based compliance threshold stored in a distributed ledger; broadcasting, to a plurality of nodes in the blockchain network, a consensus request message for updating the data of the electronic transaction and comparing the data, wherein the consensus request message is processed using a hybrid consensus mechanism that combines threshold cryptographic signatures and deterministic finality to optimize transaction validation efficiency and security, executing event driven control logic stored in the distributed ledger, the control logic including a plurality of event declarations that, when triggered by authenticated market data received from a predefined oracle, cause concurrent execution of:
executing event driven control logic stored in the distributed ledger, the control logic including a plurality of event declarations that, when triggered by authenticated market data received from a predefined oracle, cause concurrent execution of: real time valuation of the transaction against predetermined thresholds; automated generation of authenticated settlement instructions for movement of collateral between blockchain linked custodian accounts or, for custodians external to the blockchain network, generation of standardized financial messaging format instructions; and updating the transaction block with a record of the movement, wherein the transaction block further stores structured legal agreement data in a markup template with dynamic variable bindings applied during transaction execution. In other words, this claim describes a procedure directed to large scale electronic processing, in particular distributed ledger technology that utilizes coordination among multiple concurrent processes (per Technical Field in the Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of computer network, external computer terminals and external entities utilizing generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1--YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical
application. The claim recites additional elements of: a device in a blockchain network that communicates over a computer network with a first external computer terminal, one or more second external computer terminals, and at least two external entities, the device comprising a memory configured to maintain data of an electronic transaction, predetermined thresholds, and external identification information, and circuitry; receiving, over the computer network from the one of the one or more second external computer terminals; receiving, over the computer network from the first external computer terminal, a request message having the data of the electronic transaction; broadcasting, over the computer network to the one or more second external computer terminals, an alert message alerting of the request message; receiving, over the computer network from the one of the one or more second external computer terminals, a response message having counter transaction data that relates to the alert message. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The computer network, external computer terminals, external entities, device, memory, and circuitry in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data (including adding transaction block, creating/ generating the at least one transaction block as an immutable record of the transaction data and the counter transaction data; receiving a request message, broad-casting an alert message, receiving a response message, determining a match, up-dating the data, etc.). These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s and using the blockchain as a tool, at a high level of generality. These steps and additional elements, do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a computer network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because these additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-under-stood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, pages 18 and 19 (of 47) of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an example computer system for implementing the distributed ledger technology according to an exemplary aspect of the disclosure. The distributed ledger technology may be implemented as browser-based user interfaces that are executed on networked desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, or the like, running any of well-known operating systems, including a version of the Windows Operating System, Macintosh Operating system, Android Operating System, iOS, or a Linux-based computer system. The distributed network on which the distributed ledger technology is maintained, may include a network of nodes 514a, each node 514a of which may be a computer system of FIG. 6. In this disclosure, a node 514a may be implemented as software executed by processors 650, as a computer image in a cloud service, virtual processors, any of various application specific integrated circuits, or integrated logic circuits, collectively referred to herein as circuitry 600. Connections and communications between end user computers and the nodes 514a are accomplished using the Internet, which may be either IPv4 or IPv6.
A computer system (circuitry 600) may include one or more main processors 650 and may include a graphics processing device 612. The graphics processing device 612 may perform many of the mathematical operations of the distributed ledger technology. In order to achieve the distributed ledger technology, the main processors 650 and other hardware elements may be realized by various processing circuitry, known to those skilled in the art.
For example, CPU 650 may be a Xenon® or Core® processor from Intel Corporation of America or an Opteron® processor from AMD of America, or may be other processor types that would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The computer system (circuitry 600) may include a main memory 602 that contains the software being executed by the processors 650 and 612, as well as a long term storage device 604 for storing blockchain-related data and blockchain-related software programs including control logic, one or more consensus algorithms, and one or more hash functions.
Several interfaces for interacting with the computer system (circuitry 600) may be provided, including an I/O Bus Interface 610,Input/Peripherals 618 such as a keyboard, touch pad, mouse, Display Interface 616 and one or more Displays 608, and a Network Controller 606 to enable wired or wireless communication through a network 99. The interfaces, memory and processors may communicate over the system bus 626, such as a PCI bus.”} --- and
indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B--NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent device Claim 1 and independent non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 16, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 11. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 12-15, further narrow the independent method Claim 11 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., including at least one of an updated rate and spread related to valuation of an item having value that is tied to the transaction data, to the pre-determined thresholds to obtain a comparison result, wherein the transaction data and the counter transaction data include a value at a future settlement date, an initial posting of the value of the item, a currency pair and a forward exchange rate; determine the value of the item after the initial posting; establish movement of the item between the external entities/sources based on a final value of the item; settle the movement of the item on the future settlement date; broadcast a consensus request message for creating a data block as an immutable record of the currency pair and the forward exchange rate; and perform an action based on the comparison result including performing an updated valuation of a contract and sending an alert message; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 11. Similarly, dependent device Claims 2-10 and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claims 17-20 also further narrow their independent Claims 1 and 16 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 02 JANUARY 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Previous Double Patenting Rejection has now been withdrawn based on Terminal Disclaimer (TD) filed 01/02/2026 and approved 01/03/2026. Thus, the rejection of amended claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, as described above, is being maintained herein, and clarification provided in response to the Applicant’s remarks on pages 13-17 of 01/02/2026.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks and as argued by the Applicant from bottom of page 15 to top of page 16 of the Remarks --- {“Instead, the claims recite (1) event-driven execution of control logic stored in a distributed ledger, (2) concurrent execution of multiple interdependent technical processes triggered by authenticated oracle inputs, (3) hybrid consensus mechanisms combining threshold cryptographic signatures and deterministic finality, and (4) structured legal agreement data encoded in dynamic markup templates with variable binding applied by the blockchain node during runtime.”}. Examiner notes that one way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant further references Example 39 of the October 2019 PTO guidance as further supporting the Applicant’s position traversing 101 rejection in its arguments of 01/02/2016 in bottom of page 14. And in particular, Applicant asserts that --- {“Similar to Example 39, the claims do not recite any mathematical formulas, algorithms by name, or business logic per se, but instead recite how a distributed system is architected and programmed to carry out highly technical data handling processes.”}. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner clarifies that the claim in Example 39 recites use of training a neural network for facial detection, while the instant application’s claims do not recite “a neural network”. Rather, the claim in Example 39 was found eligible to overcome 101 rejection, because that claim “does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations”; and “while some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims”. Further, the claim “does not recite a mental process, because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind”. Finally, the claim “does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people.” Thus, the claim in Example 39 does not apply to the instant application’s exemplary claim 11.
In further response to Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use 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 exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea --- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that the instant application’s claims are similar to DDR Holdings, and that the instant application {“improves the operation of the blockchain network itself, akin to the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the invention provided a technological solution to a problem rooted in computer networks.”}. Examiner notes that the claims of the instant application are unlike the claims in DDR Holdings, because in DDR Holdings, it was expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites that made the claims eligible. Examiner further notes that the US Court of Appeals noted in its decision on DDR Holdings held that ---
{“We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent. For example, in our recently-decided Ultramercial opinion, the patentee argued that its claims were “directed to a specific method of advertising and content distribution that was previously unknown and never employed on the Internet before.” 2014 WL 5904902, at *3. But this alone could not render its claims patent-eligible.”} --- . Examiner notes that the present case is different: because the focus of the instant claims is not on such an improvement in internet-centric computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computer as tools.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that using blockchain to integrate with existing SWIFT/API messages technology is just a convenience provided by SWIFT/API messages to integrate with newer blockchain, but it is not an improvement in technology as argued by the Applicant.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the previous responses to arguments from previous office actions are incorporated here by reference.
Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea. A method for a device in a blockchain network that communicates over a computer network with a first external computer terminal, one or more second external computer terminals, and at least two external entities, the device comprising a memory configured to maintain data of an electronic transaction, predetermined thresholds, and external identification information, and circuitry.
Examiner notes that the instant application recites “a method that communicates a computer network with a first external computer terminal, one or more second external computer terminals, and at least two external entities,” is merely using a generic computer system used to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claim, when considered as a whole, is nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Examiner notes that if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, for Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The processor/s (device/s) limitations in the instant application do not add significantly more, because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a computing processor (device) performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application. Examiner maintains the conclusion above under Step 2B, where it was shown “that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.” Beyond the abstract idea, the claims merely recite well-understood, routine conventional activities, either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps, again please see Electric Power Group. Considered individually or taken together as an ordered combination, the claim elements fail to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Just as in Alice, all of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, and therefore, fail to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is
considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is
responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights