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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant contends that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, but instead recites a specific computer-implemented distributed-ledger architecture that integrates any alleged abstract concept into a practical technological application.
Response to Remark 1: Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the additional elements discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Remark 2: Applicant contends that the combination of ledger-specific configurations and cryptographic linkage, along with a database for cross-chain indexing, is not a mere instruction to perform a transaction on a generic blockchain, but instead recites a technical solution that improves transaction integrity, auditability and searchability while reducing replicated data across ledgers, as expressly recited in the claim.
Response to Remark 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 3: Applicant contends that in the present claims, the database cross-linkage, the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers, and the use of a user interface presentation layer at a computing system all move the present claims away from a method for organizing human activity, and rather should be construed as solving the technical problem of storing data in an efficient and non-repudiable way.
Response to Remark 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 4: Applicant contends that Enfish provides that "software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can". As seen from above, the claims are directed to the efficient and non-repudiable storage and indexing of data at a computer system, and are thus not directed to merely human activity.
Response to Remark 4: Examiner respectfully disagrees. To be directed to a patent eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer itself, which is not the case here. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 5: Applicant contends that the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and reflects an improvement in computer and distributed-ledger functionality, satisfying Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO eligibility framework. The claimed solution solves inefficiencies in the current storage and indexing of data, which is more than a mere economic solution. The prior art objections have been withdrawn with this action, indicating that such data storage and indexing differs from that in the art, and thereby provides a technical advantage.
Response to Remark 5: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive. To the extent Applicant is arguing an inventive concept due to the absence of a prior art rejection, the novelty or non-obviousness of an abstract idea does not make it patent eligible.
Remark 6: Applicant contends that even if an abstract idea were assumed, the ordered combination of maintaining multiple cryptographically linked ledgers with distinct data-storage roles, a database for cross-chain indexing, and generating cryptographic reference log blocks constitutes significantly more than routine or conventional activity, thereby providing an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Response to Remark 6: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the abstract idea discussed in Step 2A, Prong One and thus do not provide an inventive concept.
Remark 7: Applicant contends that the system orchestrates three distinct blockchains, each with a specialized role, and a blockchain index and search database structure optimized for rapid indexing and searching. This specialization is a technical solution to the inefficiency of monolithic ledgers, where every node must store every byte of data, leading to high latency and massive storage overhead. In this regard, the applicant submits that the solution is not a conventional activity come up with rather a technical solution.
Response to Remark 7: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0097, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260) Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-9 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 10-18 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1, 10 and 19 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A computerized method for securing and performing a transaction, the method comprising:
maintaining, within a computing system, a plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers, the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers comprising:
a digital identity blockchain configured to store cryptographic identity credentials;
a listing blockchain configured to store transaction-specific data; and
an audit blockchain configured to store immutable transaction summaries;
maintaining, within the computing system, a blockchain index and search database for indexing and searching of the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers as a single cross-chain source;
indexing the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers within the blockchain index and search database;
receiving, utilizing a user interface presentation layer at the computing system from a first party, a request to start the transaction;
verifying the identity and a role for the first party by validating a cryptographic credential by searching the blockchain index and search database using the indexing of the digital identity blockchain;
identifying, from the request, a transaction type and parties to the transaction;
starting a workflow for the transaction based on the transaction type;
sending, based on the workflow, requests for information to the parties to the transaction;
receiving the information; and
storing the information in the listing blockchain for the transaction while generating a cryptographic reference log block stored on the audit blockchain, wherein the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers improves transaction integrity and auditability while reducing replicated data across the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers.
Claim 10:
A computing system for securing and performing a transaction, the computing system comprising:
a processor;
a communications subsystem, and
memory,
wherein the computing system is configured to:
maintain, within a computing system, a plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers, the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers comprising:
a digital identity blockchain configured to store cryptographic identity credentials;
a listing blockchain configured to store transaction-specific data; and
an audit blockchain configured to store immutable transaction summaries;
maintain, within the computing system, an index and search database for indexing and searching of the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers as a single cross-chain source;
index the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers within the blockchain index and search database;
receive, utilizing a user interface presentation layer, from a first party, a request to start the transaction;
verify the identity and a role for the first party by validating a cryptographic credential by searching the blockchain index and search database using the indexing of the digital identity blockchain;
identify, from the request, a transaction type and parties to the transaction;
start a workflow for the transaction based on the transaction type;
send, based on the workflow, requests for information to the parties to the transaction;
receive the information; and
store the information in the listing blockchain for the transaction while generating a cryptographic reference log block stored on the audit blockchain, wherein the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers improves transaction integrity and auditability while reducing replicated data across the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers.
Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer readable medium for storing instruction code for securing and performing a transaction, the instruction code, when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to:
maintain, within the computing system, a plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers, the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers comprising:
a digital identity blockchain configured to store cryptographic identity credentials;
a listing blockchain configured to store transaction-specific data; and
an audit blockchain configured to store immutable transaction summaries;
maintain, within the computing system, an index and search database for indexing and searching of the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers as a single cross-chain source;
index the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers within the blockchain index and search database;
receive, utilizing a user interface presentation layer, from a first party, a request to start the transaction;
verify the identity and a role for the first party by validating a cryptographic credential by searching the blockchain index and search database using the indexing of the digital identity blockchain;
identify, from the request, a transaction type and parties to the transaction;
start a workflow for the transaction based on the transaction type;
send, based on the workflow, requests for information to the parties to the transaction;
receive the information; and
store the information in the listing blockchain for the transaction while generating a cryptographic reference log block stored on the audit blockchain, wherein the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers improves transaction integrity and auditability while reducing replicated data across the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use 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)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0097, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the verifying the identity is based on a single sign on and a credential identifying a user and a device.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the verifying comprises:
receiving confirmation of identity from an authorized party within the computing system,
sending a message to the first party to verify a communications channel; and
sending a certificate for a computing device being used by the first party to the first party for manual or automatic installation on the computing device.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the transaction requires data, the data being populated from a self-sovereign identity stored in a block on the digital identity blockchain.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
after the verifying, ensuring authorization for the transaction to proceed.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the computing system stores a plurality of workflows for various transaction types.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
once the workflow is completed:
sending a final agreement request to the first party and parties to the transaction;
receiving confirmation from the first party and the parties to the transaction that the transaction is completed; and
performing the storing of the details of the completed transaction on the audit blockchain.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers are private blockchains accessible through an application program interface on the computing system.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the transaction is a real estate transaction, and wherein the first party is an agent or real estate professional, and the parties to the transaction include one or more of a buyer, a seller, a buyer’s agent, a seller’s agent, a brokerage, a lawyer, a banker, a government institution, an insurance agent, an insurance company, and a real estate professional.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the computing system is configured to
verify the identity based on a single sign on and a credential identifying a user and a device.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the computing system is configured to
verify by:
receiving confirmation of identity from an authorized party within the computing system,
sending a message to the first party to verify a communications channel; and
sending a certificate for a computing device being used by the first party to the first party for manual or automatic installation on the computing device.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the transaction requires data, the data being populated from a self-sovereign identity stored in a block on the digital identity blockchain.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the computing system is further configured to
ensure authorization for the transaction to proceed after verification.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the computing system
stores a plurality of workflows for various transaction types.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the computing system is further configured to,
once the workflow is completed:
send a final agreement request to the first party and parties to the transaction;
receive confirmation from the first party and the parties to the transaction that the transaction is completed; and
perform storing of details of the completed transaction on the audit blockchain.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers are private blockchains accessible through an application program interface on the computing system.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes securing a transaction by receiving a request, verifying identity, identifying type, starting workflow, exchanging and storing information, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0041-0051, 0081-0085, 0118-0120, 0223, 0250-0254, 0260). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the transaction is a real estate transaction, and wherein the first party is an agent or real estate professional, and the parties to the transaction include one or more of a buyer, a seller, a buyer’s agent, a seller’s agent, a brokerage, a lawyer, a banker, a government institution, an insurance agent, an insurance company, and a real estate professional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claims 10-18 recite "the computing system" without proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 10 and 19 recite "the blockchain index and search database" without proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is needed.
Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 11-18 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claims Free of Art
Claims 1-19 are free of art. The closest prior art of record is US 2019/0318433 A1 to McGee et al. (“McGee”). McGee teaches:
maintaining, within the computing system, a plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers, the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers comprising: a digital identity blockchain configured to store cryptographic identity credentials; a listing blockchain configured to store transaction-specific data; and an audit blockchain configured to store immutable transaction summaries; (paras 151, 177, 180, 184, 200, 239)
maintaining, within the computing system, a blockchain index and search database for indexing and searching of the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers as a single cross-chain source; (paras 151, 177, 180, 184, 200, 239)
indexing the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers within the blockchain index and search database; (paras 151, 177, 180, 184, 200, 239)
receiving, utilizing a user interface presentation layer at the computing system from a first party, a request to start the transaction; (paras 148-149, 151, 159-160, 167, 180, 213-228, 236)
verifying the identity and a role for the first party by validating a cryptographic credential by searching the blockchain index and search database using the indexing of the digital identity blockchain; (paras 131, 146, 173)
identifying, from the request, a transaction type and parties to the transaction; (paras 159-160, 178, 188-197, 201-206)
starting a workflow for the transaction based on the transaction type; (paras 159-160, 178, 188-197, 201-206)
sending, based on the workflow, requests for information to the parties to the transaction; (paras 148-149, 151, 159-160, 167, 180, 213-228, 236)
receiving the information; and (paras 148-149, 151, 159-160, 167, 180, 213-228, 236)
wherein the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers improves transaction integrity and auditability while reducing replicated data across the plurality of cryptographically linked ledgers (paras 151, 177, 180, 184, 200, 239)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
storing the information in the listing blockchain for the transaction while generating a cryptographic reference log block stored on the audit blockchain
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0383379 A1 to Choi discloses: The present invention relates to a system and a method for issuing cryptocurrency by a request of a real estate transactor or transacting the issued cryptocurrency by a request of an owner of the real estate which has been transacted in a real estate transaction contracted by the real estate transactor and a licensed real estate agency. In the real estate transaction, the real estate transactor, who wants to receive a new loan from a financial institution to pay a part of a real estate transaction price to a seller or wants to accept an existing loan of the financial institution, and the real estate owner who has received a loan from the financial institution or wants to receive a new loan from the financial institution by providing the real estate as collateral for funding, abandon a part of a right for an actual value of the real estate to issue the cryptocurrency and refund the loan of the financial institution by a sale fund, thereby removing burden for financial expenses caused by the loan and protecting a right of an owner of the cryptocurrency.
US 2021/0166333 A1 to Cook discloses: A system for storing data related to a transaction and for facilitating the transaction, the system comprising: an application server coupled with a database and configured to store information associated with a plurality of transactions, the information including account information related to a user account maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and account information related to a recipient account maintained with a second financial institution, the application server further configured to: receive transaction data associated with a payment of the transaction, the transaction data comprising an identifier and user account information; identify the recipient account information based on a comparison of the received identifier against the stored recipient identifier; generate transfer instructions data based on the transaction data and recipient account information; and forward the transfer instructions data to the first financial institution based on the user account information to cause a deposit into the recipient account.
US 2020/0026834 A1 to Vimadalal et al. discloses: The present invention relates to a system and corresponding method for creating an identity safe in which a user's identity and other data (such as payment data) is securely stored. An identity safe service provider receives from the user's device (e.g., smartphone) at least two forms of the user's identity (e.g., driver's license and passport). The identity safe and third party service providers verify the user's identity data. The identity safe service provider generates a public key and a private key associated with the user, the private key being sent to and retained by the user's secure smartphone keychain. The identity safe service provider encrypts and signs the verified user identity data with the private/public key pair, and adds that data to a blockchain ledger as a new entry. The new entry is cryptographically linked to a prior entry on the blockchain ledger to form the identity safe, which is immutable and incorruptible. An online service provider may subsequently verify the signature and decrypt the user's identity data with the user's private/public key pair to authenticate the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights