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 Status
Claims 1-13, 15, and 16 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Objections
Drawings
It is noted that replacement sheets are submitted for FIGS. 2, 3, and 4. If FIGS. 2, 3, or 4 are amended, please show the changes in a marked-up copy or describe all changes made in the record.
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 1-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. Although the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter (under Step 1 of § 2106’s test), it is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-13, 15, and 16 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards purchasing a ticket, making a payment record, reimbursing the payment using a code, and assigning a voucher used to perform tax reimbursement processing, which requires reconciliation and trust, when a reimbursement event is triggered. These are long-standing commercial practices previously performed by humans (e.g., institutions, accountants, consumers, etc.) manually and via generic computing, as acknowledged in the specification (e.g., “an existence form of the institution code . . .”) As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—using a blockchain to store and combine the record, ticket and reimbursement event, obtaining a voucher, prevent tampering) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. The invention leverages the dispersed ledger aspects of a blockchain to improve trust and reconciliation between the purchase, reimbursement. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims, either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0278820 to Meadows, in view of US 11,682,053 to Tietzen et al.
With respect to Claims 1, 15, and 16, Meadows teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0013]), a blockchain-based data processing device, comprising: processor; and a storage, configured to store computer-executable instructions (FIGS. 1 and 4), a data processing method (FIGS. 2,3), applied to a blockchain node in a blockchain (FIG. 3), wherein the blockchain is used to store a payment record and an electronic ticket ([0059-61]) that are obtained after an institution member makes a payment based on a reimbursement code of an institution ([0068]; QR Code), and the method comprises: querying a payment record and an electronic ticket of a reimbursement payment event of the institution member in the blockchain after a write-off condition (“redemption”) of the institution member is triggered ([0068];[0054-55]); performing association processing of the reimbursement payment event based on the queried payment record and electronic ticket, to obtain to-be-written-off data ([0048];[0054]); performing write-off processing on the to-be-written-off data, to generate a reimbursement form ([0088], teaching the use of a form) of the institution member, and performing on-chain processing ([0054];[0068]); and performing accounting processing ([0039];[0041]) based on the reimbursement form, and uploading an obtained accounting voucher ([0043];[0054]) to the blockchain for tax declaration processing ([0039]). Meadows fails to expressly teach the exact claim terminology used in the instant claim set; however, verbatim disclosure is not required. The structure/system in Meadows is configured to perform the inventions as rejected above, but only broadly mentions some of the terms (e.g., reimbursement at [0055];[0068]). Terms such as “to be written off data” are afforded their BRI, to include tax write-offs, etc. Actions such as “tax declaration processing” limit the invention to a particular context, but is step is a conventional part of “accounting” processing, and as such, it is obvious to try, amongst a finite choice of actions performed during accounting processing. See, KSR International.
Meadows fails to expressly teach, but Tietzen further teaches performing accounting processing based on the reimbursement form to obtain an accounting voucher (col 10, ln 35-45, token equivalent, frequent flyer miles, etc.); and preventing the obtained accounting voucher from being tampered with based on using the blockchain as a core, wherein using the blockchain as a core to prevent tampering improves a reliability of the accounting voucher (col 10, ln 35-45, token equivalent, frequent flyer miles, etc.) Tietzen discusses reimbursement as a debit to the account holder’s account statement. (col 24, ln 40-48; col 34, ln 7-17) As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Meadows to include vouchers and using the security of blockchain to prevent tampering with the voucher, so as to improve reliability.
With respect to Claim 2, Meadows teaches wherein the blockchain is further used to store an institution identifier of the institution ([0046]) and an association relationship between the institution and the institution member ([0046-47]), and the method further comprises: obtaining the institution identifier of the institution and a member identifier of the institution member of the institution ([0046-47]) when a reimbursement code (QR code) activation application of the institution is detected and the reimbursement code is successfully generated ([0049]); and establishing an association relationship between the institution identifier and the member identifier, and uploading the institution identifier and the association relationship to the blockchain ([0046-47]).
With respect to Claim 3, Meadows teaches wherein the reimbursement code of the institution is activated in the following manner: detecting, based on a reimbursement code activation request ([0072];[0087]), whether the institution is an authenticated institution ([0087]), or whether an institution member submitting the reimbursement code activation request is an institution owner of the institution; and upon determining that the institution is an authenticated institution or the institution member submitting the reimbursement code activation request is an institution owner of the institution, generating the reimbursement code, delivering the reimbursement code to the institution or the institution member submitting the reimbursement code activation request, and establishing a binding relationship between the institution and a submitted institution account ([0030];[0087-88]).
With respect to Claim 4, Meadows teaches wherein before the step of querying a payment record and an electronic ticket of a reimbursement payment event of the institution member in the blockchain after a write-off condition of the institution member is triggered, the method further comprises: performing expense control verification ([0039];[0041], “accounting” processing) on the reimbursement payment event of the institution member based on an expense control rule ([0056]) configured for the reimbursement code; and upon determining that the expense control verification succeeds, performing payment processing based on an institution account bound to the institution, to obtain the payment record of the reimbursement payment event, and uploading the payment record of the reimbursement payment event to the blockchain ([0068]).
With respect to Claim 7, Meadows teaches wherein the write-off condition ([0068], “redemption”) of the institution member comprises at least one of the following: a reimbursement limit allocated by the institution to the institution member for the reimbursement code is exhausted, and a ticket application control of the reimbursement payment event of the institution member is triggered ([0056]); and the ticket application control ([0059-61]) is configured on a payment completion page generated after a payment of the reimbursement payment event is completed ([0009-10];[0087-90]).
With respect to Claim 8, Meadows teaches wherein the electronic ticket ([0059-61]) is uploaded by a reimbursement processing system that accesses the blockchain node ([0080], “added” blocks teach uploading), and the reimbursement processing system obtains the electronic ticket in the following manner: performing expense control verification on the reimbursement payment event of the institution member based on an expense control rule ([0056]) configured for the reimbursement code; upon determining that the expense control verification ([0039];[0041], “accounting” processing) succeeds, performing payment processing based on an institution account bound to the institution, to obtain the payment record of the reimbursement payment event ([0068]); and obtaining the electronic ticket submitted by the institution member, or transferring the payment record to a ticket application link activated by a merchant, to generate the electronic ticket of the reimbursement payment event ([0059-61]).
With respect to Claim 9, Meadows teaches wherein the performing association processing of the reimbursement payment event based on the queried payment record and electronic ticket, to obtain to-be-written-off data ([0056]) comprises: analyzing a business payment relationship between a plurality of reimbursement payment events based on element information comprised in payment records of the plurality of reimbursement payment events ([0078]); and combining the plurality of reimbursement payment events into a business payment event based on the business payment relationship ([0078]), and determining a payment record set and an electronic ticket set of the business payment event as the to-be-written-off data ([0068]).
With respect to Claim 13, Meadows teaches wherein the institution account comprises a financial account activated by the institution at a financial institution ([0049], a bank account); and correspondingly, the performing payment processing based on an institution account bound to the institution comprises: transferring out funds from the financial account based on an order amount carried in the reimbursement payment event, and transferring the transferred-out funds to an account of the merchant, wherein the funds transferred out from the financial account are prepaid by the financial institution, and the institution reimburses the financial institution for the prepaid funds in an agreed billing period ([0068];[0087-90]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows, in view Tietzen, and further in view of US 2019/0392489 to Tietzen et al (Tietzen2).
With respect to Claim 5, Meadows teaches sending an activation invitation of the reimbursement code to the institution member based on an activation request submitted by the institution for the institution member ([0072], dynamic request teaches an activation invitation); performing identity verification processing on the institution member when a confirmation instruction submitted by the institution member for the activation invitation is detected ([0004];[0045]).
Meadows fails to teach, but Tietzen2 teaches when the identity verification processing succeeds, establishing a mapping relationship between the institution member and institution keyword information of the institution, and uploading the mapping relationship to the blockchain. ([0075];[0094];[0096], teaching mapping). Tietzen2 discusses the benefit of providing an auditable linked time-stamping of inalterable archived records of transactions. [0003]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Meadows to include mapping as taught by Tietzen2, in order to better provide an auditable linked time-stamping of inalterable archived records of transactions.
With respect to Claim 6, Meadows teaches issuing the electronic ticket of the reimbursement payment event based on the institution keyword information and the payment record that is of the reimbursement payment event and that is read from the blockchain, and performing on-chain processing ([0041];[0068];[0087]). Meadows fails to teach, but Tietzen2 teaches wherein the electronic ticket is generated and uploaded by a ticket node of a ticket issuer in the blockchain ([0041]), and the ticket node issues the electronic ticket in the following manner: querying, in the blockchain, institution keyword information that has a mapping relationship with the institution member ([0075];[0094];[0096], teaching mapping). Under the same rationale as Claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Meadows to include this limitation taught by Tietzen2.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows, in view of Tietzen, and further in view of US 2019/0057226 to Arbutina.
With respect to Claim 10, while Meadows teaches dealing with governmental agency ([0056]) it fails to teach the instant limitations. Arbutina teaches wherein the tax declaration processing is performed by a tax node of a tax institution in the blockchain, and the tax declaration processing performed by the tax node comprises: reading the accounting voucher of the institution from the blockchain, and creating a declaration form of the institution based on the accounting voucher; and performing tax declaration processing of the institution based on the declaration form, and uploading a tax declaration processing result to the blockchain, wherein the institution accesses the tax declaration processing result through the blockchain node or an institution node of the institution in the blockchain. ([0083];[0090]; FIG. 8) Arbutina discusses the need to integrate increasingly complex wealth and tax data. [0002-03]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Meadows to include tax declaration processing at a tax node, in order to better integrate increasingly complex data, as taught by Arbutina.
With respect to Claim 11, Meadows teaches wherein the tax declaration processing is performed by an institution system or a third-party system that accesses the blockchain node, ([0056]). Meadows fails to expressly teach, but Arbutina teaches the institution system or the third-party system performs tax declaration processing in the following manner: reading the accounting voucher of the institution from the blockchain, and creating a declaration form of the institution based on the accounting voucher; and uploading the declaration form to the blockchain, to transmit the declaration form to a tax institution through the blockchain; or transferring the declaration form through a data interface provided by a tax institution, and uploading, to the blockchain, a tax declaration processing result returned by the data interface. ([0083];[0090]; FIG. 8) Under the same rationale as Claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify to include this limitation taught by Arbutina.
Claim 12 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows, in view of Tietzen, and further in view of US 11,127,082 to Gore et al.
With respect to Claim 12, Meadows teaches wherein the expense control verification is implemented in the following manner: determining a target reimbursement category that matches the reimbursement payment event in at least one reimbursement category of the expense control rule ([0068], could be a single category). Gore teaches verifying whether element information carried in the reimbursement payment event falls within a value range of an expense control element associated with the target reimbursement category; and upon determining that element information carried in the reimbursement payment event falls within the value range of the expense control element associated with the target reimbursement category, determining that verification on the reimbursement payment event in terms of the target reimbursement category succeeds. (col 8, ln 66-col 9, ln 17). Gore teaches that current approaches and processes for determining whether to arbitrate a claim are time-consuming and involves multiple interactions. (col 1, ln 34-39) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Meadows to include the recited value based reimbursement decision process, as taught by Gore.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 8/28/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. Initially please confirm that the statement “Thus, claims Claims 1, 4, 6, 8 and 15-16 are now pending” is erroneous (i.e, that the wrong claim set was not submitted). The pending claims remain 1-13, 15, and 16. The amendment overcomes the prior objections to the specification, drawings, and the § 112 rejection. As per § 101, the Claims continue to recite inventions including an abstract idea (fundamental economic principle), e.g., a method of triggering a reimbursement event and executing same. Considering a payment record, electronic ticket, to-be-written-off data, reimbursement form to obtain a voucher is well-known, routine, and conventional (see prior art references of record, added by an updated search). Placing the abstract idea in the context or environment of blockchain fails to overcome patent ineligibility by itself. The amendment adds further detail of the abstract idea, directed to obtaining a voucher. As per the prior art refernences of record, Tietzen has been added to the combination to teach treatment of a voucher (e.g., token on account, frequent flyer miles, etc.) and how such reimbursement is executed. The combination of Meadows and Tietzen would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the state of the art at the time of filing, each and every limitation of the claims as currently recited. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
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 WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see 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.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696