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
This is the final office action on the merits in response to the application filed on December 8, 2025.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claim 7 has overcome the claim objection, and the claim objection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112:
The amended claims have overcome the 112 rejections on most of the claims except claim 17. Additionally, the amended claims cause new 112 issues. The applicant is advised to refer to 112 rejection section for details.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
The applicant contends that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and the claims are directed to a technological solution to a technical problem. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to transferring a digital property, which is related to fundamental economic principles and/or commercial or legal interactions, a subgroup under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, the steps of configuring a first address of a first account for the transfer of the digital property to a second account, discovering a second address, and determining a blockchain number can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)). The examiner would like to point out that determining information associated with a transfer of the digital asset is a regular procedure, and that utilizing a graphical user interface to present information associated with a payment and to include clickables/controls for processing the payment is a common practice.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant contends that the independent claims, as amended herein, by reciting systems and processes for automatically transferring on-chain digital property, recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer and computer capabilities that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant recites the features of querying a blockchain for a blockchain number, generating a link integrating the blockchain number and a control, and automatically executing a routine to transfer the on-chain digital property when the control is activated on a graphical user interface and contends that these features meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As the examiner pointed out determining information associated with a transfer of the digital asset is a regular procedure, and utilizing a graphical user interface to present information associated with a payment and to include clickables/controls for processing the payment is a common practice. Additionally, the improvement claimed by the applicant is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, not in the function of a computer, technology, or a technical field. The identified 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 claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways 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 claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it 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.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 103 rejections. Accordingly, the previous 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “querying, by the application using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity that receives the transfer by the digital property rail of the on-chain digital property; in response to discovering the second address, querying, by the application, based at least in part on the second address, a blockchain associated with the second crypto-distributed account to determine a blockchain number associated with the second crypto-distributed account”; claim 11 recites “query, using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity that receives the transfer by the digital property rail of the on-chain digital property; in response to discovering the second address, query, based at least in part on the second address, a blockchain associated with the second crypto-distributed account to determine a blockchain number associated with the second crypto-distributed account”; and claim 18 recites “querying, using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity that receives the transfer by the digital property rail of the on-chain digital property; in response to discovering the second address, querying, based at least in part on the second address, a blockchain associated with the second crypto-distributed account to determine a blockchain number associated with the second crypto-distributed account.” The specification is silent with respect to these limitations. Paragraph [0015] of the specification describes: “[P]erform a query operation based on the crypto-distributed account address that has been entered to determine the address of the crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity; in response to determining the crypto-distributed account address, discover a distributed record number associated with the crypto-distributed account address of the corporate entity to enable set up of the digital property rail to send the on-chain digital property to the crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity.” Paragraphs [0044]-[0045] of the specification describe: “[A] function that causes a query operation of a crypto wallet to determine a block number that is set up with the crypto wallet and the particular virtual or digital currency stored in the wallet … the customer enters information about the crypto wallet or distributed account address along with the policy number, and the application queries the distributed accounts to get the blockchain number.” Paragraph [0052] describes: “[A]pplication 8 is configured to use the combined data 10 to query the blockchain 14 (e.g., the Ethereum distributed account, blockchain) to get a blockchain number 16 (e.g., for example, to determine a distributed account number associated with a distributed account address) for use in processing a payment by the automated script or smart contract 18.” Paragraph [0084] of the specification describes: “[T]he application (or crypto processing system) may automatically (in response to a request from the user) query based on a crypto wallet address entered by the user, a crypto wallet of the insurance entity for discovering a blockchain number or distributed account number to enable the payment to the crypto wallet of the insurance entity.” The specification does not disclose: “querying, using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity … in response to discovering the second address, querying, based on at lease in part on the second address, a blockchain … to determine a blockchain number.”
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claims 1, 11, and 18, respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “querying, by the application using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity that receives the transfer by the digital property rail of the on-chain digital property”; claim 11 recites “query, using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity that receives the transfer by the digital property rail of the on-chain digital property”; and claim 18 recites “querying, using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity that receives the transfer by the digital property rail of the on-chain digital property.” The manner of querying to discover a second address by using a policy number is unclear. What place/database/dataset the query performs on by using the policy number is unclear. Additionally, it is unclear how the policy number is used to discover the second address.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claims 1, 11, and 18, respectively.
Claim 17 recites “in response to receiving an account of the on-chain digital property to the second crypto-distributed account, generate a receipt of digital property.” What is unclear is the manner of “receiving an account of the on-chain digital property to the second crypto-distributed account.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, claims 11-17 are directed to a system, and claims 18-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1-20 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to transferring a digital property. In particular, the claim recites configuring a first address of an account for the transfer of the digital property, discovering a second address, determining a blockchain number, generating and presenting a graphical user interface, and making the transfer of the digital property. In other words, the claim falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because a transfer of a digital property is related to fundamental economic principles and/or commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the steps of configuring a first address of an account for the transfer of the digital property, discovering a second address, and determining a blockchain number can be performed in the human mind. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] method for sending on-chain digital property, comprising: configuring, at an application, a first address of a crypto-distributed account with a policy number for creating a digital property rail to transfer the on-chain digital property using the first address from the application to a second crypto-distributed account used by a corporate entity; querying, by the application using the policy number, to discover a second address used by the second crypto-distributed account of the corporate entity that receives the transfer by the digital property rail of the on-chain digital property; in response to discovering the second address, querying, by the application, based at least in part on the second address, a blockchain associated with the second crypto-distributed account to determine a blockchain number associated with the second crypto-distributed account; generating, by the application, a graphical user interface comprising a link and a control, wherein: the link comprises the blockchain number, and the control initiates the transfer of the on-chain digital property; presenting, by the application, the graphical user interface on a client device; and executing, by the application, in response to detecting an activation of the control, an automated routine associated with the crypto-distributed account using the blockchain number to make the transfer of the on-chain digital property to the second crypto-distributed account.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements of an application, a digital property rail, a blockchain, a graphical user interface, and an automated routine in claim 1 perform the steps of transferring a digital property. These additional elements of an application, a digital property rail, a graphical user interface, and an automated routine are used as tools to implement the abstract idea such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of a blockchain generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional element of a digital property rail merely recites a process of transferring a digital property. The additional element of an automated routine could be a software application. The additional element of a graphical user interface is a common computer component that can present information and allow interactions between a user and a system. 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 claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways 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 claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it 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. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using an application, a digital property rail, a blockchain, a graphical user interface, and an automated routine to perform the steps for transferring a digital property amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the recited abstract idea. The additional element of a blockchain generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional element of a digital property rail merely recites a process of transferring a digital property. The additional element of an automated routine could be a software application. The additional element of a graphical user interface is a common computer component that can present information and allow interactions between a user and a system. As discussed above, taking the additional elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. The additional elements of at least one memory and at least one processor do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. The additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2, 12, and 19 recite the abstract idea of sending/transferring the on-chain digital property to the second crypto-distributed account within a predetermined time, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of a digital property rail merely recites the process of transferring a digital property, and it does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the abstract idea of emitting at least a digital property value of the on-chain digital property sent to the second crypto-distributed account, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of an automated routine could be a software application, and it does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 20 recite the abstract idea of receiving a confirmation of transferring the on-chain digital property to the second crypto-distributed account, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of an automated routine and an application do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 15 recite the abstract idea of providing at least one of a policy identifier or a policyholder identifier when transferring the on-chain digital property to the second crypto-distributed account, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of an application does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 16 disclose the abstract idea of providing information to match the on-chain digital property to at least one of a policy identifier or an amount of the on-chain digital property for an accounting of transferring of the on-chain digital property to the second crypto-distributed account, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of an application does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional elements are identified.
Claims 7 and 17 disclose the abstract idea of generating a receipt of a transfer of a digital property, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of an application does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional elements are identified.
Claim 8 recites an additional element of wherein the application is hosted by a client device. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply recites information included in the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites an additional element of wherein the automated routine for on-chain digital property is executed on a different digital property rail. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply recites information included in the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 14 disclose the abstract idea of emitting at least an address of a policyholder associated with digital property to the second crypto-distributed account, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of an automated routine does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Magerkurth et al. (US 11270276 B1) discloses processing a blockchain comprising a plurality of immutable insurance policy payment records corresponding to insurance policies. A transaction request indicating a policy payment for an insurance policy may be received at a first node. A block including an insurance policy payment record indicating the policy payment may be added to a blockchain and transmitted to another node for validation. The first node may add the block to a copy of the blockchain, where the block may be identified by a hash value that references a previous block in the blockchain that includes at least one additional insurance policy payment record.
Cheng et al. (US 20240428231 A1) discloses a method for automatic initiation of a blockchain transaction with a pre-approved recipient. The method includes: receiving at least a recipient identifier and a transaction amount; performing a validation process to validate that (i) the recipient identifier is pre-approved by a user of the computing device for blockchain transactions, and (ii) the transaction amount is beneath a predetermined amount limit for blockchain transactions; generating a new blockchain transaction including at least the recipient identifier, the transaction amount, and one or more source addresses; digitally signing the new blockchain transaction using a private key of a first cryptographic key pair stored in a memory of the computing device; and transmitting the digitally signed new blockchain transaction to a blockchain node in a blockchain network.
Davis et al. (US 20160335533 A1) discloses paying insurance premiums through a payment interface. A module is downloaded from the blockchain smart contract and from a backend server that allows the policyholder to pay premiums from within his or her client browser window via a cryptocurrency address containing funds whose private keys are managed by the client's browser. These payments are then processed by the blockchain smart contract, and a database is updated on the backend server to record these payments.
Castinado et el. (US 20170132615 A1) discloses a process of utilizing a block chain distributed network to facilitate a person-to-person (P2P) alias-based payment. The process includes: receiving a transaction record associated with a P2P transaction between a payor and a payee, wherein the transaction record comprises an alias associated with the payor and/or the payee; accessing a distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger is updated based on communications from a block chain distributed network; retrieving an alias to entity mapping from the accessed distributed ledger, wherein the alias to entity mapping indicates at least an entity to which the alias is mapped; and based on the mapping, determining that the alias is at least partially valid. The process further includes determining that the alias corresponds to an account number maintained by the entity in a private ledger and authorizing a transaction associated with the transaction request.
Ferreira (US 11068978 B1) discloses that a system uses a unique loan ID associated with a borrower payment to locate the corresponding loan record in the distributed ledger. And the system may then parse the loan record (i.e., each block associated with the loan ID) to determine ownership information. The borrower may be associated with a public key, allowing the system to identify previous transactions and determine, based on logic rules, which loan the payment is associated with. The system may automatically create scheduled dates for each monthly payment, and may determine whether the borrower has transferred payment at that time. One or more authorized users may be notified by the system of the transaction to transfer payment.
Jones (US 12572935 B2) discloses utilizing graphical user interfaces to transfer digital assets from one digital wallet to another digital wallet. The user can authorize and initiate the transfer via an interactive graphical user interface on a web portal. The transfer is recorded in a blockchain.
Ngo et al. (US 20230359984 A1) discloses that an initiate payment transaction may be received as a result of selection of a payment button or other interface element on the graphical user interface of a user device. The initiate payment transaction may include a blockchain transaction or may provide data regarding an associated blockchain transaction, where the blockchain transaction implements the payment operation to transfer digital assets from a sender account to a recipient account.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. An 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 CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699