DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final Action on the Merits in reply to the application filed on 06/22/2026.
a. Claims 11 and 17 are amended
b. Claims 1-10, and 15-16 were previously cancelled
Overall, claims 11-14, 17-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "identifying and combining unit for identifying and combining," "a communication unit for transmitting" in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “A multinode transaction identifier for combining transactions from a network implementing a distributed ledger according to claim 1,” however, the most recent claims submitted on 06/22/2022, has claim 1 being cancelled. The Applicant has cancelled claim 1 in the preliminary amendment filed on 10/10/2024. A person with the ordinary skilled in the art would be confused as to which claim is claim 18 further limiting.
The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 depends on claim 1; claim 1 was cancelled by the Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 10/10/2026. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 therefore, 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, 17-18 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. The limitations of independent claim 11 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[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] receiving the transaction supplies from the plurality of transaction nodes at the multinode transaction identifier over the network, wherein the multinode transaction identifier is a node within the network connected to the plurality of transaction nodes and the plurality of ledger computing nodes;
[F] identifying at least two transaction supplies from at least two transaction nodes by the multinode transaction identifier;
[G] combining the at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction between the at least two transaction nodes of the plurality of transaction nodes within the network, by the multinode transaction identifier,
[H] 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 for the at least two transaction supplies;
[I] wherein the identifying step comprises the steps of:
[J] selecting a first transaction supply (X),
[K] recursively selecting and matching one or more transaction supplies (Y, Y') within the multinode transaction identifier, by
[L] matching a selling asset of a first transaction supply (X) to a buying asset of a first further transaction supply (Y),
[M] matching a selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) to a buying asset of a next further transaction supply (Y'), and
[N] matching a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') to a buying asset of the first transaction supply (X),
[O] wherein a match occurs when a selling asset of one transaction supply corresponds to a buying asset of another transaction supply, and
[P] wherein the combining step comprises combining the first transaction supply (X) and the one or more recursively matching transaction supplies (Y, Y').
Claim 11 recites: a method for carry out transactions comprised of plurality of nodes ([A]-[B]); issuing and receiving transaction supplied by the nodes ([D]-[E]); identifying and combining at least two supplies by an identifier ([F]-[H]); recursively selecting and matching supplies ([G]-[O]); and combining supply ([P]) 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 claim elements in combination covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) because the claim language recites identifying one more transaction and updating the records (i.e., combining the transaction supplies), 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 “distributed,” “computing,” and “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 additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of managing trading assets. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claim, shown not bolded above, recite: distributed ([A], [H]), network ([A], [E], [G]). computing ([B], [E]). When considered individually, 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 (corresponding to 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 elements (limitations [A]-[P]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of managing trading assets could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 12-14, 17-18 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] 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 idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. 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 idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the combining step comprises the step of: 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 idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. 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 idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] A multinode transaction identifier for combining transactions from a network 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 claim 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 differences 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 in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 (US 20190043043 A1), in view of Dantzig (US 20090037910 A1), in further view of Cheung (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: [(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, and (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.]
receiving the transaction supplies from the plurality of transaction nodes at the multinode transaction identifier over the network, wherein the multinode transaction identifier is a node within the network connected to the plurality of transaction nodes and the plurality of ledger computing nodes; [see at least Fig. 6, (0167) node A (510) delivers token ABC (540) to node B (520) in exchange for receiving token XYZ (560) from node C (530); node B (520) delivers token EFG (550) in exchange for receiving token ABC (540) from node A, and node C (530) delivers token XYZ (560) to node A (510) in exchange for receiving token EFG (550) from node B. (0178) the nodes may be forced into two (2) transactions to avoid the risks of performance failures by the other nodes. Otherwise, once node A delivers token ABC to node B, node A may bear risk of non-performance (along with technological failure, bankruptcy, counterparty, market, and other risks) until node B receives token XYZ from node C and delivers token XYZ to node A. Node C may bear the same risk in delivering token XYZ until it receives token ABC. Therefore, to mitigate this risk, node A may transfer token ABC to node B in exchange for token XYZ from node B in the initial transaction, and node B may exchange token ABC to node C in exchange for token XYZ from node C. (0179) 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).]
Note: The Applicant’s specification (pg. 2, lines 18-21), discloses, “The transaction supply 1111, 1121 can generally be interpreted as any electronically storable information, such as a file or a data stream, which indicates, eventually by an appropriate decoding of the information, at least an asset be sold and an asset to be acquired.” One of skilled in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation can conclude transaction supplies are storable information.
identifying at least two transaction supplies from at least two transaction nodes by the multinode transaction identifier [(0180) identify whether a transaction proposed digital lock has been accepted by all nodes and/or whether matching proposed digital locks (i.e., transaction supplies) have been made by several parties and accepted by all nodes]
combining the at least two transaction supplies into a multinode transaction between the least two transaction nodes of the plurality of transaction nodes within the network, by the multinode transaction identifier, [see at least Fig. 11, 18, and (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 (i.e., combining the transaction supplies into one transaction). 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. [see at least Fig. 11, 18, and (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 is recorded in the distributed ledger … [see at least Fig. 11, and (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 for the at least two transaction supplies.
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'), within the multimode transaction identifier, by
matching a selling asset of a first transaction supply (X) a buying asset of a first further transaction supply (Y),
matching a selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) a buying asset of a next further transaction supply (Y'), and
matching a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') 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
wherein the combining step comprises combining the first transaction supply (X) and the one or more recursively matching transaction supplies (Y, Y')
Nonetheless, Dantzig, which like the present invention uses computer programs to perform recursively matching to find the product, discloses:
wherein the identifying step comprises the steps of: selecting a first transaction supply (X), [(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'), withing the multimode transaction identifier, [(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]
matching a selling asset of a first transaction supply (X) 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;]
matching a selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) 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;]
matching a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') 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;]
wherein the combining step comprises combining the first transaction supply (X) and the one or more recursively matching transaction supplies (Y, Y') [(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 perform recursively selecting product and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Dantzig. 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 for the at least two transaction supplies.
However, Cheung, which like the present invention, uses computer programs to combine the transaction nodes, discloses:
wherein the committed multinode transaction is recorded … as a single transaction for the at least two transaction supplies. [(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 transactions as a single transaction in the same or similar context. Because issuing transaction supplies, as well as recording multiple transactions as a single transaction are implemented in a device that allows the user to trade assets. Additionally, the devices of Saraniecki and Dantzig are analogous to the devices in Cheung that perform recording transactions and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Cheung. 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, and (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. [(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. [(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, [(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.]
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claim objection.
Applicant submits: “Claim 17 stands objected to for informalities. Applicant amends claim 17 to correct the informalities. Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the objections to the claim.”
Examiner response: In light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 17, the claim objection has been withdrawn. However, a new claim objection has been added in this office action regarding claim 18. See the new claim objection.
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 to a combination that "covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) because the claim language recites buying, selling of assets." 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. 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." The Office Action focuses on the buying and selling of assets, which the claims do not recite. The claims recite a selling asset and a buying asset but these recitations are for the features of the transaction supplies also recited in the claims. Indeed, claim 11 recites how transaction supplies are treated within the network implementing the distributed ledger. Applicant submits that the method recited in claim 11 is directed to how transaction supplies are received at the multinode transaction identifier, identified for combination, combined, and committed within a committed multinode transaction within the distributed ledger. Further, the step of identifying at least two transaction supplies from at least two transaction nodes includes specific limitations to perform the steps that are not related to commercial or legal transactions. Claim 1 recites that the identifying step includes "matching a selling asset of a first transaction supply (X) to a buying asset of a first further transaction supply (Y)," "matching a selling asset of each further transaction supply (Y) to a buying asset of a next further transaction supply (Y')," and "matching a selling asset of the last further transaction supply (Y') to a buying asset of the first transaction supply (X)." These features have nothing to do with buying or selling assets. Instead, claim 11 recites how the multinode transaction identifier matches the selling asset of one transaction supply with the buying asset of another transaction supply. Applicant submits that these limitations are not directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The examiner argues the current amended claim as a whole still recites an abstract idea of managing trading asset, also the amended claim elements of claim 11 covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) because the claim language recites identifying one more transaction and updating the records (i.e., combining the transaction supplies), 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)).
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 Office Action alleges that the additional claim elements do not bring about improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Applicant disagrees. The claims, as amended, now recite identifying and combining at least two transaction supplies from different transaction nodes into a multinode transaction by the multinode transaction identifier so that the multinode transaction is recorded in the distributed ledger as a single transaction for the at least two transaction supplies. Thus, a lower number of transactions are recorded within the network implementing the distributed ledger. This lower overhead is a result of the method recited in claim [11]. 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 reduces the use of a distributed ledger.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The examiner agrees with the Applicant, the current amended claim recites “ledger”, and “network”, however, these claim elements are categorized as additional element. And the additional element does not integrate into a practical application, rather, the additional serves as tools to perform the abstract idea. See the updated rejection. The 35 USC § 101 rejection has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Applicant substantially amends claim 11 with new limitations. Applicant submits that the new limitations are not disclosed or suggested in the references. Applicant submits that none of the cited references disclose or suggest identifying matching transaction supplies in a ring-shaped fashion, combining such transactions into a combined multinode transaction, and registering such multinode transaction in the distributed ledger. Further, none of the cited references disclose or suggest "receiving the transaction supplies from the plurality of transaction nodes at the multinode transaction identifier over the network, wherein the multinode transaction identifier is a node within the network connected to the plurality of transaction nodes and the plurality of ledger computing nodes," as recited in claim 11. Saraniecki fails to disclose or suggest this limitation as it fails to disclose or suggest a multinode transaction identifier configured to receive transaction supplies from the plurality of transaction nodes. Referring to Figure 11 of Saraniecki, nodes A, B, and C are not connected to a multinode transaction identifier that receives all the transaction supplies from the nodes. For example, node A is not configured to receive transaction supplies from node C. Thus, Saraniecki fails to disclose or suggest these limitations of claim 11. The secondary references fail to disclose or suggest these limitations of claim 11 missing from Saraniecki. Further, the secondary references are not cited to teach a multinode transaction identifier. Thus, Dantzig and Cheung fail to disclose or suggest these limitations of claim 11. 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 fully considered but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner argues, the amended claim 11 under broadest reasonable interpretation recites recursively matching assets. The examiner does not concede if the present claim recites matching in a ring shaped, however, the Saraniecki reference on Fig. 18 interaction between one or more node. Furthermore, the Applicant alleges the combination of Saraniecki, in view of Dantzig, in further view of Cheung does not disclose multimode transactions. However, the Examiner points out the Saraniecki references disclose communication between one or more nodes (i.e., multimode). (see Saraniecki [0179]- [0182]). Thus, the combination of Saraniecki, in view of Dantzig, in further view of Cheung the claimed limitation of claim 11. The 35 USC § 103 rejection has been maintained.
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 and 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.
Conclusion
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 Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights