DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 03/08/2024, is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 09/02/2025.
a. Claims 11-14, 17-18 are amended
b. Claims 15-16 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 11-14, 17-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objection(s)
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 is dependent upon canceled claim 16. In the interest of advancing prosecution, Examiner has considered claim 17 dependent on claim 11.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 11-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to -patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 11-14, 17 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claim 11 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold, while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional element according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
[A] A method for carrying out transactions in a network implementing a distributed ledger:
[B] wherein the network comprises a plurality of transaction nodes a plurality of ledger computing nodes and one multinode transaction identifier,
[C] the method comprising the steps of:
[D] issuing of transaction supplies, by the transaction nodes,
[E] identifying and combining at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction, by the multinode transaction identifier,
[F] committing of a committed multinode transaction in the distributed ledger, by a transaction node which received the multinode transaction.
[G] wherein the identifying step comprises the steps of:
[H] recursively selecting and matching one or more transaction supplies, wherein
[I] a selling asset of a first transaction supply (X) matches a buying asset of a first further transaction supply (Y)
[J] a selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) matches a buying asset of a next further transaction supply (Y'), and
[K] a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') matches a buying asset of the first transaction supply (X),
[L] wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded in the distributed ledger as a single transaction.
[M] and wherein the combining step comprises
[N] combining the first transaction supply (X) and the one or more recursively matching transaction supplies (Y, Y').
Claim 11 recites: a system comprised of plurality of nodes ([B]); issuing supplied by the nodes ([D]); identifying and combining at least two supplies by an identifier ([E]); recursively selecting and matching supplies ([G]); selling asset supply matches with buying asset supply ([H-J]); and combining supply ([L]) which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents enabling a system for trading assets, which is a traditional and pervasive form bartering.
This overall combination, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) because the claim language recites buying, selling of assets, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 11 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “network,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The modifiers do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of enabling a means of managing minted products. Therefore, those modifiers do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: carrying out transactions in a network ([A]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 11 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional step (limitation [A]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of managing minted products could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 11 deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 12-14, 17-18 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[B] requesting the multinode transaction, by at least one transaction node
The claim further recites the abstract idea of requesting transaction(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] a step of transmitting the multinode transaction to the transaction node requesting the multinode transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of transmitting transaction(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the combining step comprises the step of:
[B] settling the at least two transaction supplies.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the multinode transaction is recorded in the distributed ledger by using a buffer when transferring assets among the transaction nodes.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of recording transaction(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] A multinode transaction identifier for combining transactions from a network (3000) implementing a distributed ledger,
[B] wherein the network comprises a plurality of transaction nodes capable of issuing transaction supplies and a plurality of ledger computing nodes,
[C] the multinode transaction identifier comprising:
[D] an identifying and combining unit for identifying and combining at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction, and
[E] a communication unit for transmitting the multinode transaction to a transaction node.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of enabling a system for trading assets. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 11-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 11-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saraniecki et al (US 20190043043 A1 US 20190043043 A1), in view of Dantzig et al (US 20090037910 A1), in further view of Cheung et al (US 20110218900 A1).
Regarding Claim 11. Saraniecki discloses:
A method for carrying out transactions in a network implementing a distributed ledger, wherein the network comprises a plurality of transaction nodes a plurality of ledger computing nodes and one multinode transaction identifier, the method comprising the steps of: [see at least (0018) receiving a first proposed digital lock related to a digital asset recorded on a distributed ledger maintained by a network of computers … prevent transferring ownership of the digital asset except for purposes of settling a transaction that transfers the digital asset from a first transferring computer node in the network to a second receiving computer node in the network;]
issuing of transaction supplies, by the transaction node, [see at least Fig. 9, (0173) At the time of the transaction as agreed upon in the parameters of the proposed digital lock/smart contract by node A (710), node B (720), and node C (730), one or all of node A, node B, and/or node C, which may be prompted by messaging (780) from the distributed ledger (730), may initiate the transfer of token ABC (750) from node A to node B in exchange for the transfer of token EFG (760) from node B to node C, and the transfer of XYZ (350) from node C to node A.]
identifying and combining at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction, by the multinode transaction identifier, [see at least Fig. 11, (0179) a configuration with three nodes, node A (910), node B (920), and node C (930). Node A may initiate the transaction by messaging a proposed digital lock to node B (950A), which may be passed through to node (960B). Such messaging may comprise separate proposed digital locks or may comprise a single proposed digital lock. Nodes B and C may transmit their acceptance to node A (950B and 960B)]
committing of a committed multinode transaction in the distributed ledger, by a transaction node which received the multinode transaction (3301). [see at least Fig. 11, (0191) two (2) or more nodes may transmit identical proposed digital locks to the other nodes, and as long as the identical proposed digital locks are accepted by all, a transaction may be made and the tokens locked. Any one or all of the nodes may message the transaction (1290A), including the details of the tokens and the digital locks, to a central node and/or the distributed ledger (1290)]
wherein the committed multinode transaction (1132) is recorded in the distributed ledger … [see at least Fig. 11, (0018) receiving a first proposed digital lock related to a digital asset recorded on a distributed ledger maintained by a network of computers … recording the first activated digital lock in the distributed ledger or transmitting the first activated digital lock for recordation in the distributed ledger]
Saraniecki discloses performing multimode transaction, however, Saraniecki does not disclose:
wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded … as a single transaction.
wherein the identifying step comprises the steps of: selecting a first transaction supply (X),
recursively selecting and matching one or more transaction supplies (Y, Y'), wherein
a selling asset of a first transaction supply (X) matches a buying asset of a first further transaction supply (Y),
a selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) matches a buying asset of a next further transaction supply (Y'), and
a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') matches a buying asset of the first transaction supply (X)
wherein a match occurs when a selling asset of one transaction supply corresponds to a buying asset of another transaction supply, and
Nonetheless, Dantzig analogous in art uses computer program to perform recursively matching to find the product, discloses:
wherein the identifying step (S4300) comprises the steps of: selecting (S5310) a first transaction supply (X), [see at least (0112) an initial “order of processing” of the legs is selected. For a two leg trade this involves an ALeg intended to be initially matched first, and a BLeg matched second]
recursively selecting and matching one or more transaction supplies (Y, Y'), wherein [see at least (0143) multileg trades involving more than two legs, if the secondary matches correctly then the algorithm proceeds recursively publishing to the third leg (or subsequent leg) that potential matches for legs 1, 2, etc. have been found and performing the critical test on the next leg in the leg order]
a selling asset of a first transaction supply (X) matches a buying asset of a first further transaction supply (Y), [see at (0122) When the primary leg (PriLeg) reaches the front of the queue of the primary node handling matching for its target book or, in the case of peer-peer failover schemes, is agreed to be the “next order” to be handled. (0123) The book is checked to see whether a matching trade is currently available; (0124) if not: the leg is left in the book available for matching with subsequent incoming requests on that book;]
a selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) matches a buying asset of a next further transaction supply (Y'), and [see at least (0122) When the primary leg (PriLeg) reaches the front of the queue of the primary node handling matching for its target book or, in the case of peer-peer failover schemes, is agreed to be the “next order” to be handled. (0123) The book is checked to see whether a matching trade is currently available; (0124) if not: the leg is left in the book available for matching with subsequent incoming requests on that book;]
a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') matches a buying asset of the first transaction supply (X) [see at least (0122) When the primary leg (PriLeg) reaches the front of the queue of the primary node handling matching for its target book or, in the case of peer-peer failover schemes, is agreed to be the “next order” to be handled. (0123) The book is checked to see whether a matching trade is currently available; (0124) if not: the leg is left in the book available for matching with subsequent incoming requests on that book;]
and wherein the combining step comprises combining the first transaction supply (X) and the one or more recursively matching transaction supplies (Y, Y') [see at least (0135) If there is no match for the secondary leg (0136) inversion occurs: this leg previously the secondary is now considered the primary and left on the book available for matching with subsequent arriving requests]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Saraniecki to include the elements of Dantzig. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to reduce the number of communications or order between nodes. Saraniecki discloses issuing transaction supplies. Dantzig teaches recursively selecting and matching transactions in the same or similar context. Because issuing transaction supplies, as well as recursively selecting and matching transactions are implemented in a device that allows the user to trade assets. Additionally, the devices of Saraniecki are analogous to the devices in Dantzig that performs recursively selecting product and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Dantzig. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Saraniecki, as well as Dantzig would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Saraniecki/Dantzig.
The combination of Saraniecki in view of Dantzig discloses performing multimode transaction, however, the above combination of Saraniecki in view of Dantzig does not disclose:
wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded … as a single transaction.
However, Cheung analogous in art use computer program to combine the transaction nodes, discloses:
wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded … as a single transaction. [see least (0002) In trade data compression, similar trade records are combined into a single trade record aggregating multiple transactions into a single transaction record.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Saraniecki, Dantzig to include the elements of Cheung. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to reduce the number of communications or order between nodes. Saraniecki, Dantzig discloses issuing transaction supplies. Cheung teaches recording multiple transaction as a single transaction in the same or similar context. Because issuing transaction supplies, as well as recording multiple transaction as a single transaction are implemented in a device that allows the user to trade assets. Additionally, the devices of Saraniecki, Dantzig are analogous to the devices in Cheung that performs recording transactions and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Cheung. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Saraniecki, Dantzig as well as Cheung would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Saraniecki, Dantzig/Cheung.
Regarding Claim 12. Saraniecki, Dantzig, Cheung discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Saraniecki further discloses:
before the identifying step a step of: requesting the multinode transaction, by at least one transaction node. [see at least Fig. 9, (0173) At the time of the transaction as agreed upon in the parameters of the proposed digital lock/smart contract by node A (710), node B (720), and node C (730), one or all of node A, node B, and/or node C, which may be prompted by messaging (780) from the distributed ledger (730), may initiate the transfer of token ABC (750) from node A to node B in exchange for the transfer of token EFG (760) from node B to node C, and the transfer of XYZ (350) from node C to node]
Regarding Claim 13. Saraniecki, Dantzig, Cheung discloses the limitations of Claim 12. Saraniecki further discloses:
transmitting the multinode transaction to the transaction node requesting the multinode transaction. [see at least (0150) the first participant or second participant may be configured to transmit data to a central node 17 for recordation in the distributed ledger. Accordingly, the central node 17 may act as a writer node … Broadcasting may include the first participant, second participant, or other node broadcasting the activated digital lock to the GSL 1013.]
Regarding Claim 14. Saraniecki, Dantzig, Cheung discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Saraniecki further discloses:
wherein the combining step comprises the step of: settling the at least two transaction supplies. [see at least (0164) Node A and/or node B may also message the central node and/or the distributed ledger that the transaction has been completed … the central node and/or the distributed ledger may message the nodes that the transaction has been completed]
Regarding Claim 17. Saraniecki, Dantzig, Cheung discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Saraniecki further discloses:
wherein the multinode transaction (3301) is recorded in the distributed ledger by using a buffer when transferring assets among the transaction nodes (1110-1140). {(0100) Once validation is complete, the writer node(s) 1020 may store the new DAML contract in its PCS 1015 (as depicted in Step 07 of FIG. 26) and add the aforementioned transaction to its transaction buffer (e.g., Transaction Mempool of FIG. 25) for eventual commitment to the GSL 1013 … If a particular node has data to write to the ledger, in the form of an update to a DAML contract, executing a code segment of a DAML contract, deploying a new DAML contract, conducting a transaction in DAML, or the like, the node (e.g., node 1018 or 1022) may transmit the data to a read/write node for recording on the ledger 1007}
Regarding Claim 18. Saraniecki, Dantzig, Cheung discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Saraniecki further discloses:
A multinode transaction identifier for combining transactions from a network implementing a distributed ledger, [see at least (0018) receiving a first proposed digital lock related to a digital asset recorded on a distributed ledger maintained by a network of computers … prevent transferring ownership of the digital asset except for purposes of settling a transaction that transfers the digital asset from a first transferring computer node in the network to a second receiving computer node in the network;]
wherein the network comprises a plurality of transaction nodes capable of issuing transaction supplies and a plurality of ledger computing nodes, [see at least Fig. 9 (0173) At the time of the transaction as agreed upon in the parameters of the proposed digital lock/smart contract by node A (710), node B (720), and node C (730), one or all of node A, node B, and/or node C, which may be prompted by messaging (780) from the distributed ledger (730), may initiate the transfer of token ABC (750) from node A to node B in exchange for the transfer of token EFG (760) from node B to node C, and the transfer of XYZ (350) from node C to node A.]
the multinode transaction identifier comprising: an identifying and combining unit for identifying and combining at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction, and [see at least Fig. 11, (0179) a configuration with three nodes, node A (910), node B (920), and node C (930). Node A may initiate the transaction by messaging a proposed digital lock to node B (950A), which may be passed through to node (960B). Such messaging may comprise separate proposed digital locks or may comprise a single proposed digital lock. Nodes B and C may transmit their acceptance to node A (950B and 960B)]
a communication unit for transmitting the multinode transaction to a transaction node. {(0150) the first participant or second participant may be configured to transmit data to a central node 17 for recordation in the distributed ledger. Accordingly, the central node 17 may act as a writer node … Broadcasting may include the first participant, second participant, or other node broadcasting the activated digital lock to the GSL 1013.}
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090106061 A1 Knipfer; Ivory W. et al. PROGRESSIVE VENDOR DATA MANAGEMENT AND VERIFICATION IN A MULTI-NODE SUPPLY NETWORK - The present invention address deficiencies of the art in respect to product data sharing in a multi-node supply chain and provide a method, system and computer program product for progressive vendor data management and verification in a multi-node supply chain. In one embodiment of the invention, a method for progressive vendor data management and verification in a multi-node supply chain can be provided. The method can include propagating vendor data requirements for a product component downstream from a root node in the supply chain to a leaf node in the supply chain producing a portion of the product component. The method further can include verifying vendor data at each node in the supply chain according to the vendor data requirements.
US 20220036415 A1 Golubovsky; Leo et al. METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF DISTRIBUTED TRANSACTION PROCESSING - A first transaction computer system and a second transaction computer system are provided. The first transaction computer system receives data transaction requests that may be routed to the second transaction computer system. The second transaction computer system attempts to match the routed data transaction request against pending data transaction requests using hidden attributes.
US 20160086273 A1 RICE; Robert Eric et al. SYSTEM INCLUDING AN ELECTRONIC MACHINE PLATFORM WITH MULTI-TIER ENTITY MATCHING - A system includes processing circuitry communicatively coupled to a plurality of terminals and a database that includes a first data structure that identifies a plurality of participant entities and that associates each of at least a subset of the participant entities with participant category information, by which the processing circuitry is configured to identify each of the participant entities as being one of three participant category entities, a second data structure that identifies assignable share data structures and respective ones of the plurality of participant entities to which the share data structures are assigned, and a third data structure that identifies offers of the participant entities to unload one or more of the share data structures assigned to the offering participant entities, and offers of the participant entities to obtain assignment of one or more of the share data structures, offers being matched according to a three-tier paradigm.
US 20180107703 A1 Sharp; Mason DECENTRALIZED DISTRIBUTED DATABASE CONSISTENCY - A method for maintaining consistency in distributed databases includes receiving, by a coordinator from an application server, a transaction initiation message for a transaction. Additionally, the method includes determining whether to generate a distributed transaction identifier (DXID) for the transaction, including determining whether the transaction will be performed on a single data node or on multiple data nodes, determining to generate the DXID in response to determining that the transaction will be performed on the multiple data nodes, and generating, by the coordinator, the DXID corresponding to the transaction in response to determining to generate the DXID for the transaction. The method also includes sending, by the coordinator directly to a first data node, the DXID, sending, by the coordinator directly to a second data node, the DXID, and performing the transaction using the DXID.
US 7966249 B1 Dawson; James D. et al. Block trading system and method - In an electronic trading system, a method for facilitating block trading of financial instruments includes establishing a set of tiered block trading ranges, each tiered block trading range having a lower limit defining a minimum order size for filling block trades within the respective tiered block trading range, receiving a block order for a financial instrument, the block order having a block size that falls within a first tiered block trading range, and executing the block order in accordance with the minimum order size defined by the lower limit associated with the first tiered block trading range. The electronic trading system is adapted to identify executed trades with matching parties and financial instruments, combine each set of matching trades into a single trading order, reverse out the individual matching trades, execute the single trading orders, and transmit data corresponding to the executed trades to the transacting parties or a clearing entity.
US 8554694 B1 Ward; Charles L. et al. Computer system and method for community-based shipping - Computer system and method for providing community-based shipping of items may provide mechanisms that allow customers of an network service to participate in a community shipping program that provides customers that are members in a community with free and/or reduced-rate shipping for at least some items ordered via the network service for delivery to a target location (e.g., receiving/distribution site) for the community. The Web site may provide user interface elements that may provide one or more shipping and possibly other options to customers that participate in a community shipping program. Community shipping programs may include commercial shipping programs and locality shipping programs. In a commercial shipping program, a primary subscriber purchases a subscription to a commercial shipping program and shares the subscription with one or more occupants of the commercial property. A locality shipping program may be provided to members of a particular geographic region or locality.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: “Claims 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. In order to expedite prosecution, Applicant amends claim 11 to recite "a match occurs when a selling asset of one transaction supply corresponds to a buying asset of another transaction supply." This feature defines with certainty how a match occurs and what constitutes a match. Applicant submits that one skilled in the art would understand that "match" and "matching" are known as limitations that define subject matter within the claim. These limitations entail corresponding or equality between two entities, such as, in this context, between assets or transaction supplies. These features are defined in the specification along with examples to enable one to clearly understand the scope of the matching limitation and the boundaries of the claim. For example, support for these features may be found throughout the specification, such on page 2, lines 22-25, or page 15, lines 3-32, of the filed specification. In view of the amendment to claim 11, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the indefiniteness rejection.
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, and does find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendment(s), 35 USC § 112(b) rejection for claims 1-20 is withdrawn..
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. In this instance, the Office Action alleges that the claims are directed a process aimed at "enabling a system for trading assets, which is a form or bartering. The Office Action asserts that this is a combination of commercial or legal interactions, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are not directed to a form of trading or bartering assets. The claims are directed to a specific algorithm for recursive matching of transaction supplies to form a cycle. The claims also recite a multinode identifier that automatically commits the cycle as a single ledger transaction. Based on these features, the claims recite more than a trading method.
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, and does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant’s argument, as the claims are directed to a form of trading. As the recursively selecting and buying and selling of assets does fall under trading. Furthermore, the applicant argues the claim “recites a multimode identifier that automatically commits…”, however, the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant as the claims in the original disclosure or the newly amended does not recite “automatically commits”. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), commercial or legal interactions include "agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations." Claim 11 does not recite an agreement or generating an agreement, but "committing of a committed multinode transaction in the distributed ledger, by a transaction node which received the multinode transaction, wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded in the distributed ledger as a single transaction." At least two transaction supplies are identified and combined into the multinode transaction using specified limitations that are not related to commercial interactions. Thus, the claims are not directed to a commercial transaction. Instead the claims are directed to a defined method for recursive matching of transaction supplies to form a cycle using a multinode identifier that automatically commits the cycle as a single ledger transaction. Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, and does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant’s argument, as the claims are still directed to a commercial transaction. Claim 11 recites “ selling asset … buying asset…” these are directed towards buying and selling of asset which is a commercial transaction. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Even if claims 11-18 are directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not admit, the claims recite a practical application as the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The claimed method enables avoiding deadlocks, thereby ensuring atomicity of the transaction. The claimed method also reduces the number of ledger entries. This feature leads to the improvements mentioned in the specification, such as lower ledger overhead, single-transaction commitment avoiding risks of partial settlement, and efficiency advantages in multi-party matching. Thus, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application as the abstract idea is used in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, and does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant’s argument, as the claims are directed towards a business problem. As the claim recites recursively selling and buying of asset. The MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Claim 11 recites, “selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) matches a buying asset of a next further transaction supply (Y'), and- a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') matches a buying asset of the first transaction supply (X)” which is a business problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Applicant also submits that the claimed method differs from a "trading method." The claims recite how a distributed ledger system processes and records complex transactions based on network-level improvements instead of business logic. Applicant submits that these features are significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Further, the claims are directed to a method for carrying out transactions in a network that includes the use of a distributed ledger. Use of a distributed ledger is significantly more than a trading method.
For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under Section 101 be withdrawn.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, and does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant’s argument, as the claims are directed towards a business logic of buying and selling of asset. The claim uses network as tool to accomplish those logic. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Claim 11 recites "recursively selecting and matching one or more transaction supplies (Y, Y'), ... wherein a match occurs when a selling asset of one transaction supply corresponds to a buying asset of another transaction supply." Claim 11 also recites "committing of a committed multinode transaction in the distributed ledger, by a transaction node which received the multinode transaction, wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded in the distributed ledger as a single transaction." Applicant submits that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the limitations of the pending claims. The Office Action concedes that Saraniecki fails to recursively selecting and matching one or more transaction supplies. The Office Action, however, cites Dantzig as teaching this feature. Dantzig describes coordinated processing of compound requests in distributed environments and teaches queuing and heuristics for multi-leg trades. Dantzig, however, fails to disclose or suggest recursive matching that leads to a single ledger commitment. In short, recursive cycling (X ->Y->Y'-X) is not disclosed or suggested in the cited reference. Instead, Dantzig describes "if the secondary matches correctly then the algorithm proceeds recursively publishing to the third leg (or subsequent leg). Applicant submits that this description of Dantzig does not disclose or suggest recursive matching one or more transaction supplies.”
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant as the argument is geared towards newly amened language. Furthermore, claim 11, in the original disclosure, does not recite any limitation about “single ledger commitment”. Additionally, claim 11 in the original disclosure does recite recursively selecting and matching, which taught by the Dantzig reference. See the updated rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Further, Dantzig fails to disclose or suggest that a match occurs when a selling asset of one transaction supply corresponds to a buying asset of another transaction supply. The cited reference fails to disclose or suggest matching a selling asset to a buying asset. Instead, Dantzig describes matching legs that are in a leg order. Further, Dantzig is silent with regards to transaction supplies. Thus, Dantzig fails to disclose or suggest these limitations of claim 11.”
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant as the Dantzig reference does recites recursively matching (see Dantzig paragraph 0122). Although it does not specifically mention buying or selling, it implies if the book (i.e. an asset) is matched then trade occurs, which is similar to buying or selling of asset. Furthermore, the MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that trading if match occurs is “buying and selling of asset” and therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Claim 11 also recites "identifying and combining at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction, by the multinode transaction identifier" and "committing of a committed multinode transaction in the distributed ledger, by a transaction node which received the multinode transation, wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded in the distributed ledger as a single transaction," as recited in cancelled claims 15 and 16. The Office Action cites Saraniecki as teaching these features. Saraniecki fails to disclose or suggest the use of a multinode identifier to coordinate recursive matching. The cited reference also fails to disclose or suggest recording the entire multi-party transaction as one committed ledger transaction. Node A of Saraniecki is not a multinode identifier as node A does not identify and combine at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction. The cited reference describes initiating a transaction but does not combine multiple transactions into a multinode transaction.
For these reasons, Applicant submits that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 11. The remaining claims depend from claim 11. The dependent claims distinguish over the cited references for the reasons provided above. In view of these patentable distinctions, Applicant respectfully requests that the obviousness rejections be withdrawn.”
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant as the independent claim 1 is rejected using the combination of Saraniecki, Dantzig, Cheung references. Thus the combination of Saraniecki, Dantzig, Cheung discloses the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, the dependent claims 12-14, 17-18 are also rejected both by virtue of dependency and by art rejection. See the updated rejection. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Md S. Hyder whose telephone number is 571.270.1820. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 6pm EST. 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.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Md. S. H./
Examiner, AU 3698
12/12/2025
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights