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 .
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-30 meet step 1 as the claims are directed to a method or process and a system comprising process steps.
Independent claim 1 recite(s) the following limitations: acquiring … blockchain data from a blockchain network, wherein the blockchain data includes transaction data corresponding to a plurality of blockchain transactions executed by the blockchain network on a blockchain maintained by the blockchain network; representations of a plurality of blockchain addresses; and transaction data indicating links between the plurality of blockchain addresses, wherein each link represents at least one blockchain transaction involving two respective blockchain addresses; for one or more respective blockchain addresses: calculating… a set of scoring features associated with the respective blockchain address, wherein the set of scoring features includes a distance feature indicating a distance between the respective blockchain address and at least one fraudulent blockchain address that has been determined to be involved in one or more fraudulent transactions, wherein the distance is based on one or more links forming at least one path between the respective blockchain address and the at least one fraudulent blockchain address; generating… a feature vector corresponding to the respective blockchain address, the feature vector including the set of scoring features associated with the respective blockchain address; determining… a respective trust score for the respective blockchain address by inputting the feature vector corresponding to the respective blockchain address into a scoring model, wherein the respective trust score is based in part on the distance feature and indicates a likelihood that the respective blockchain address will be involved in a fraudulent transaction… to indicate the respective trust score determined with respect to the respective blockchain address, receiving a request to approve a blockchain transaction associated with a first blockchain address: determining a second blockchain address associated with the requested blockchain transaction, wherein the second blockchain address is one of the plurality of blockchain addresses; retrieving a respective trust score associated with the second blockchain address determining that the respective trust score is indicative of fraud and automatically cancelling the requested blockchain transaction based on the respective trust score associated with the second blockchain address, wherein the automatic canceling prevents an addition of the requested blockchain transaction to the blockchain network.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the limitations recited above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, recite certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g. steps of hedging risk of fraud in blockchain transactions) and a mathematical concept of calculating scoring features, feature vectors and calculating a trust score. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements of “at a server” “a blockchain network” “maintaining, at the server, a data structure based on the blockchain data, wherein the data structure stores:…”, “within the data structure”, “within the data structure”, “updating, at the server, the data structure…” and “from a device” are no more than merely generic computer components and steps applied to the abstract idea to perform the functionalities of the abstract idea steps, such as receiving, transmitting data and storing and updating information in a database. The application of the abstract idea to the blockchain network is merely limiting the abstract idea to one field of use and merely applying the blockchain technology.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional elements of using a server, steps of acquiring, maintaining, updating and receiving information at the server in a database is merely using generic computer systems and steps as tools to perform the abstract idea (“apply it”). Further the application of the blockchain technology is additionally merely limiting the field of use to generic blockchain technology. This is supported by the original specification paragraph [0102]-[0108] that describe the processing units are generic components (“may include one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), digital signal processing units (DSPs), or other processing units.” [0104]; “In some implementations, the trust system 100 may include one or more computing devices that are configured to implement the techniques described herein. Put another way, the features attributed to the modules and data stores described herein may be implemented by one or more computing devices. Each of the one or more computing devices may include any combination of electronic hardware, software, and/or firmware described above. For example, each of the one or more computing devices may include any combination of processing units, memory components, I/O components, and interconnect components described above.” [0108]). As to the insignificant extra-solution active, please see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, claims 3-15 do not recite further additional elements but merely narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claim. Claim 2 further clarifies the data structure is a graph data structure. However, this is merely applying the generic type of database to the abstract idea.
Claims 16-30 are directed to a system comprising a plurality of steps that are similar limitations to claim 1. Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rational as applied above to claims 1-15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are like example 47 of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility examples, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract idea. The original specification paragraph [0102]-[0108] that describe the processing units are generic components (“may include one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), digital signal processing units (DSPs), or other processing units.” [0104]; “In some implementations, the trust system 100 may include one or more computing devices that are configured to implement the techniques described herein. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 and applicant’s specification, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way computers store and retrieve data in memory. Rather, applicant’s specification and claims describe the processing units are generic components (“may include one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), digital signal processing units (DSPs), or other processing units.” [0104]; “In some implementations, the trust system 100 may include one or more computing devices that are configured to implement the techniques described herein. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic computing device(s). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to conventional and generic use of blockchain transaction safety, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the computing device is generic computing device. The applicant has not improved the computing device. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s 101 arguments in regard to the Kim memo emphasizing that step 2A prong two requires analyzing the claim as a whole, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements of “at a server” “a blockchain network” “maintaining, at the server, a data structure based on the blockchain data, wherein the data structure stores:…”, “within the data structure”, “within the data structure”, “updating, at the server, the data structure…” and “from a device” are no more than merely generic computer components and steps applied to the abstract idea to perform the functionalities of the abstract idea steps, such as receiving, transmitting data and storing and updating information in a database. The application of the abstract idea to the blockchain network is merely limiting the abstract idea to one field of use and merely applying the blockchain technology.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional elements of using a server, steps of acquiring, maintaining, updating and receiving information at the server in a database is merely using generic computer systems and steps as tools to perform the abstract idea (“apply it”). Further the application of the blockchain technology is additionally merely limiting the field of use to generic blockchain technology. This is supported by the original specification paragraph [0102]-[0108] that describe the processing units are generic components (“may include one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), digital signal processing units (DSPs), or other processing units.” [0104]; “In some implementations, the trust system 100 may include one or more computing devices that are configured to implement the techniques described herein. Put another way, the features attributed to the modules and data stores described herein may be implemented by one or more computing devices. Each of the one or more computing devices may include any combination of electronic hardware, software, and/or firmware described above. For example, each of the one or more computing devices may include any combination of processing units, memory components, I/O components, and interconnect components described above.” [0108]). As to the insignificant extra-solution active, please see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to CosmoKey, the examiner respectfully disagrees. CosmoKey is not precedential, so CosmoKey does not have authority for deciding other cases. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Ancora v. HTC, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The decision in Ancora v. HTC is a non-presidential decision. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regards to Bascom, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, they use the unconventional step of filtering Internet content using ISP. The filtering was performing remote server rather than local server. In Bascom, they provided technical basis and provided non-conventional and non-routine way of changing the filtering of Internet content using ISP. Unlike Bascom, the current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, applicant’s argument with respect Bascom is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception (step 2B), the examiner disagrees. Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional elements of using a server, steps of acquiring, maintaining, calculating, generating, updating and receiving information at the server in a database is merely using generic computer systems and steps as tools to perform the abstract idea (“apply it”). Further the application of the blockchain technology is additionally merely limiting the field of use to generic blockchain technology. This is supported by the original specification paragraph [0102]-[0108] that describe the processing units are generic components (“may include one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), digital signal processing units (DSPs), or other processing units.” [0104]; “In some implementations, the trust system 100 may include one or more computing devices that are configured to implement the techniques described herein. Put another way, the features attributed to the modules and data stores described herein may be implemented by one or more computing devices. Each of the one or more computing devices may include any combination of electronic hardware, software, and/or firmware described above. For example, each of the one or more computing devices may include any combination of processing units, memory components, I/O components, and interconnect components described above.” [0108]). As to the insignificant extra-solution active, please see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695