DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 4/13/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 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
112
The examiner withdraws the previous 112(b) rejections due to the claim amendments.
101
The applicant argues that claim 11 as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically the applicant argues that the claimed system sets forth a specific computer-implemented control protocol for digital resources, the claimed system changes how the computer system itself controls resource availability and release, the claimed system is focused on a specific improvement in the computer-implemented handling of digital resources, the claimed system requires a particular sequence of system operations and state transitions, and the claimed system defines a practical technological mechanism for implementing conditional transfer control in a digital resource management system (See applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 8-10).
However the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 11 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 additional elements within the claim include: “a processor”, “a memory”, “a computing device”, “execute digital certification of the first quantity of resources based on generating an electronic proof document associated with digital certification of the resources, the electronic proof document being digitally signed”, “enabling a virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources in the intermediate resource account”, and “disable the virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources responsive to validating the second request by verifying, using the electronic proof document”. The processor, memory, and computing device are merely computers being used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of “Execution of digital certification of the first quantity of resources based on generating an electronic proof document associated with digital certification of resources”, “enabling a virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources in the intermediate resource account”, and “disable the virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources responsive to validating the second request by verifying, using the electronic proof document” is also 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 or field of use. A person can certify a first quantity of resources in an intermediate account by generating a physical proof document and signing the physical proof document which can then be used to unfreeze assets in an intermediate account so that they can be used and/or transferred to another account. Using computers to perform this abstract idea electronically does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further the applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the recited exception. Specifically the applicant argues “This ordered combination supplies significantly more because it recites a particular security and control architecture for digital resource transfers”, “Even if one assumed that accounts, digital signatures, message transmissions, and validations were each known individually, claim 11 does not merely string them together at a high level. It arranges them in a particular way to create a controlled reserved-resource state, bind that state to a specific transfer operation, and release it only after document-based validation tied to recipient identity and transaction correspondence”, “The additional elements are not generic "apply it on a computer" language. The claim does not merely invoke a processor, memory, or network to perform ordinary bookkeeping. Rather, it imposes a concrete operational structure on the system. The virtual lock prevents alternative transfers. The intermediate account isolates the digitally certified resources from the original account. The digitally signed proof document functions as a verification object in the later request flow. These are substantive limitations that narrow the claim to a particular implementation, not mere computerization”, and “Finally, Step 2B is strengthened by the fact that the claimed features work together to solve a technical problem in computerized transfer systems: how to reserve digital resources for a designated transfer while preventing those resources from being reused elsewhere, and how to release them only upon successful machine validation tied to the intended recipient and transfer context”.
However the examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reasons as stated above. The additional elements of the claim are merely using computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The generating of an electronic proof document and the virtual locking/unlocking of resources is recited at a high level of generality and does not recite specific technical details on how these functions are being performed in the claim.
103
The examiner agrees that the combination of Davis/Xia/Linscott fail to disclose "executing digital certification of the first quantity of resources based on generating an electronic proof document associated with digital certification of the resources, the electronic proof document being digitally signed" and "disable the virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources responsive to validating the second request by verifying, using the electronic proof document, that the second request corresponds to the recipient identifier and the first transfer operation associated with the digital certification". The examiner withdraws the previous 103 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 digitally 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 digital certification of the first quantity of resources based on generating an… proof document associated with the digital certification of the resources, the… proof document being… signed; enabling a… lock on the digitally certified resources in the intermediate resource account, the… lock preventing use of the digitally 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 digitally 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 digitally 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 digital 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 “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 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 an electronic proof document that is digitally signed, and 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 electronic proof document that is digitally signed and the 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over the prior art:
The instant claims include receiving, via a computing device, a first request to digitally 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 digital certification of the first quantity of resources based on generating an electronic proof document associated with digital certification of the resources, the electronic proof document being digitally signed; enabling a virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources in the intermediate resource account, the virtual resource lock preventing use of the digitally certified resources in transfer operations other than the first transfer operation until the virtual resource lock is disabled; responsive to receiving, via the computing device, a second request to transfer the digitally certified resources: transmitting, to a recipient entity, a message comprising the electronic proof document and an indication of the expiry time; disabling the virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources responsive to validating the second request by verifying, using the electronic proof document, that the second request corresponds to the recipient identifier and the first transfer operation associated with the digital 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.
US 20160267447 A1 to Davis teaches a system and method that enables a user to send a payment to a recipient using an intermediate account that provides funding for a deposit to be made into a recipient account prior to the settlement or actual funding of the payment from the sender’s account. A payment initiation message is generated and sent to the recipient device to perform the transaction. US 20200410474 A1 to Xia teaches a system and method that uses a expiry time which causes a payment to be cancelled if the payee does not successfully register for an account within a predetermined period of time. US 20140195416 A1 to Linscott teaches a system and method that digitally signs an invoice that includes payment terms. Further Linscott teaches that a lock can be place on an intermediate account after it is credited with a payment amount which is locked for a predetermined period of time and/or until occurrence of one or more events. The cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach the specific technique of executing digital certification of the first quantity of resources based on generating an electronic proof document associated with digital certification of the resources, the electronic proof document being digitally signed; and disabling the virtual resource lock on the digitally certified resources responsive to validating the second request by verifying, using the electronic proof document, that the second request corresponds to the recipient identifier and the first transfer operation associated with the digital certification, in combination with the rest of the limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P SAX whose telephone number is (571) 272-2935. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/TS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights