DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 8/14/2026.
Claims
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
101
The applicant argues that amended claim 1 and similarly amended claim 11 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Specifically the applicant argues that claim 1 recites that the virtual resource lock is enabled by updating a data record associated with the first resource account to exclude the digitally certified resources from a pool of resources available for allocation to other transfer operations. This is a specific technique for maintaining data record consistency across a networked computing system in which multiple, potentially concurrent, requests may seek to allocate the same underlying resources to different transfer operations”. Further the applicant argues that this limitation addresses a problem that is rooted in computer technology and has no analog in the manual, paper-based certification practice the Office Action invokes. Furthermore the applicant argues that the claims are analogous to those found in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a specific data structure improved how a computing system stored and retrieved data, and in Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where a specific technique for structuring and tracking data across a user interface was found to improve the functioning of the underlying system rather than merely apply an abstract idea using generic computer components. (See applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 7 and 8).
However the examiner respectfully disagrees. The findings in in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp, and Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC were specific to their claims and the time the cases was filed. The pending application recites the abstract idea of transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account. The added limitation of updating a data record associated with a first resource account to exclude the resources from a pool of available resources for allocation to other transaction operations is part of the abstract idea which falls under the a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. The use of a virtual lock, digital resources, and an electronic document does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. Instead it is using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of computers.
Further, the applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 11 recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the cited art does not disclose or suggest the combination of features and therefore the additional elements cannot be dismissed as routine, conventional, or well-understood activity in the field. The data record exclusion mechanism, combined with the digitally signed proof document together supply an inventive concept. (see applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 8 and 9).
However the examiner respectfully disagrees. The "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.") (See MPEP 2106.05 I). Further, as disclosed above, the additional elements of the claim are merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The examiner has considered all of the applicant’s arguments but maintains the 101 rejection.
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, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3 and 5-10 are directed to a computing system and claims 11-13 and 15-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving… a first request to… certify resources for a first transfer operation, the first request including an identifier of a first resource account, a recipient identifier, a first quantity of resources to certify, and an expiry time; causing a transfer of the first quantity of resources from the first resource account to a defined intermediate resource account; executing… certification of the first quantity of resources based on generating an… proof document associated with the… certification of the resources, the… proof document being… signed; enabling a… lock on the… certified resources in the intermediate resource account by updating a data record associated with the first resource account to exclude the… certified resources from a pool of resources available for allocation to other transfer operations, the… lock preventing use of the… certified resources in transfer operations other than the first transfer operation until the… lock is disabled; responsive to receiving… a second request to transfer the… certified resources: transmitting, to a recipient entity, a message comprising the… proof document and an indication of the expiry time; disabling the… lock on the… certified resources responsive to validating the second request by verifying, using the… proof document, that the second request corresponds to the recipient identifier and the first transfer operation associated with the… certification; and processing transfer of the first quantity of resources from the intermediate resource account to a second resource account associated with the recipient entity”, which is grouped within the “mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account which falls under the category of “concepts performed in the human mind” and “fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP § 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 is directed to a system that performs the same functions of claim 11. Therefore Claim 1 is also directed to the abstract idea of transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional element(s) of claims 1 and 11, such as the use of the processor, memory, and computing device, merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the processor, memory, and computing device perform(s) the steps or functions of transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Further, the use of digital certification, an electronic proof document that is digitally signed, and a virtual resource lock is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. computers) or field of use. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 11 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a processor, memory, and computing device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processor, memory, and computing device perform(s) the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Further, the use of the digital certification, an electronic proof document that is digitally signed, and a virtual resource lock is recited at a high level and are used for generally linking the use of the judicial exception (e.g. transferring a first quantity of resources into an intermediate account and preventing the use of the resources in the intermediate account until a signed document certifying the resources is received to allow the resources to be transferred out of the intermediate account) to a particular technological environment (e.g. computers) or field of use and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10 and 12, 13, 15-20 further describe the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 12 describes the electronic proof document as being in a portable document format (PDF) which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such as computers; claims 3 and 13 describe the resource accounts and the use of a database and resource management server to store data records associated with the accounts. The use of the database and resource management server are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of computers; claims 5 and 15 recite the abstract idea of transferring the first quantity of resources from the intermediate resource account to the first resource account based on the transfer of the certified resources expiring. There are no additional elements in the claims; claims 6 and 16 recites the use of private key associated with a resource management server to sign the electronic proof document. The use of the private key of the resource management server to sign the electronic proof document is generally linking the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of computers; claims 7 and 17 describes the intermediate resource account and does not include any additional elements; claims 8 and 18 recite the abstract idea of tracking a current status of the transfer and sending a status message to the sender. There are no additional elements in the claim; claims 9 and 19 recite the abstract idea of sending an expiration notification message to the recipient when the transfer of the certified resources has expired. There are no additional elements in the claims; claims 10 and 20 recite that the second request comprises a first input via a user interface associated with a resource management server. The use of the user interface associated with a resource management server is using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The reasons for allowability over the prior art is provided in the previous Non-Final Rejection dated 5/14/2026.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY SAX whose telephone number is 571-272-2935. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575.
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.
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.
/TPS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights