DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), was filed in this application on March 2, 2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This office action is prepared in response to claim amendments and Remarks submitted by Applicant on March 2, 2026 relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/637,510, filed on April 17, 2024 which is a Continuation of Application No. 17/502,419, filed on Oct. 15, 2021, now Pat. No. 11,989,722. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 19 have been amended. Claims 23 and 24 have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 and 23-24 are pending and have been examined. This action is non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by the applicant on February 16, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been reviewed.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted by Applicant on March 2, 2026 have been fully considered, however, are not persuasive.
With respect to the Section 101 Rejection, Applicant has amended independent Claims 1, 11 and 19 and asserts that they are not directed to an abstract idea but instead to a specific technical architecture for managing blockchain address resources and cryptocurrency conversion that recites a technical solution, namely an address pool service with stored fiat currency that addresses technical problems inherent in blockchain-based transaction processing systems. (Remarks, pp. 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims recite an abstract idea amounting to commercial interactions. (See Section 101 Rejection below).
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 Applicant asserts even if Claim 1 is recites a judicial exception, it is integrated into a practical application. (Remarks, p. 13). Citing to the Office’s 12/5/25 Dejardins Memo in support of evaluating a specification to determine if sufficient technical details are disclosed to support a technical improvement, Applicant asserts that the instant specification identifies several technical problems and explains how the claimed features solve them. First, Applicant asserts the Specification (Par. 21) explains a technical problem of computationally expensive blockchain address generation: "In a large scale operation, addresses for customers must be generated for use in payments at a very high rate (e.g., millions per day). However, it may be impractical to create a new request to generate an address every single time a charge is issued (e.g., because, for example, in the case of blockchain addresses these requests may be computationally expensive and/or otherwise cause traffic spikes)" and explains (Par. 22) that a solution is “an address pool service responsible for maintaining a pool of addresses that may be allocated/used by commerce systems" which is recited in amended, Claim 1. (Remarks, p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees that computationally expensive blockchain address generation is a technical problem. It appears to be an improvement to a business process.
Second, Applicant asserts the Specification (Par. 55) explains a technical problem of cryptocurrency exchange rate volatility during trade execution: "By executing the payment using these prefetched funds, the omnibus event processing platform 102 may reduce volatility for merchants. For example, if a delay was experienced (e.g., to process all of the trades) prior to moving the funds into the merchant's account, exchange rates may change during the delay, which may result in the merchant receiving a lesser amount of the target currency than if the funds had been transferred at substantially the same time as they were received from the customer" and asserts that a technical solution to this problem (Specification Par. 54) is that currency prefetched at step 202 may be used to execute the payment to the merchant in that a comparable amount of the target currency may be determined and that amount of the target currency may be selected for transfer to the merchant’s account. (Remarks, p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees that too is a solution to a technical problem. It appears to be an improvement to a business process in that it may reduce volatility to merchants.
Third, Applicant asserts the Specification (Par. 56) explains a technical problem of security concerns and the corresponding solution reflected in amended Claim 1: "Additionally, in executing the trades, the omnibus event processing platform 102 may trade using credentials for the omnibus account without otherwise needed credentials for or accessing the merchant's accounts. In doing so, the omnibus event processing platform 102 may reduce security concerns associated with enabling the enterprise (of the omnibus event processing platform 102) to trade on behalf of merchants using the merchant's credentials." (Remarks, p. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees that this is a technical solution and instead improves the business process. Applicant asserts that when the elements of the amended independent claims are evaluated as an ordered combination they provide a technical solution to technical problems and integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. (Remarks, pp. 15-16). The additional elements in amended Claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality, generally linking the abstract idea to blockchain and cryptocurrency and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not provide a technical improvement such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to technology or to a technical field. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See Section 101 Rejection below).
Lastly, Applicant citing to Bascom for support, asserts that under Step 2B the combination of elements does not recite well-understood, routine and conventional activity and the claims amount to significantly more and are patent eligible. (Remarks, pp. 16-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements recited in the amended independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. (See Section 101 Rejection below). The Section 101 Rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 and 23-24 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 23-24 are directed to a method. Claims 11-12 and 14-18 are directed to a system. Claims 19-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media. Therefore, on its face, each of the claims is directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Claim 11 recites: maintain a pool of a plurality of pay to addresses and fiat currency in an omnibus account, wherein the plurality of pay to addresses are obtained, prior to receipt of a purchase request, are associated with the omnibus account and may be used to route funds from the omnibus account to a merchant account, and wherein the pay to addresses are not associated with a particular merchant account at a time they are obtained; for the purchase request, associate a client and a merchant with one of the plurality of pay to addresses; upon detecting receipt of a predefined amount of cryptocurrency at the one of the plurality of pay to addresses, wherein the one of the plurality of pay to addresses is selected from the pool; upon detecting a predefined amount of cryptocurrency at the one of the plurality of pay to addresses, autoconvert the predefined amount of cryptocurrency to an equivalent amount of fiat currency at substantially the same time as the cryptocurrency is received by transferring the equivalent amount of fiat currency from fiat currency stored in the omnibus account to an account associated with the merchant while executing a trade to exchange the predefined amount of cryptocurrency for the equivalent amount of fiat currency, wherein performing the autoconversion comprises: identifying, prior to expiration of a predetermined time duration, the equivalent amount of the fiat currency, trading, on behalf of the omnibus account, the predefined amount of cryptocurrency for the equivalent amount of the fiat currency without the need for credentials for the account associated with the merchant, and replenishing an amount of stored fiat currency using the equivalent amount of the fiat currency; removing, after transferring the fiat currency from the omnibus account to the account associated with the merchant, the association between the client, the merchant, and the one of the plurality of pay to addresses; and returning the one of the plurality of pay to addresses to the pool for use in conducting a subsequent purchase request. The abstract idea recited in Claim 11 involves maintaining pool of a plurality of pay to addresses and fiat currency associated with an omnibus account which may be used to route funds from the omnibus account to a merchant account, upon detecting receipt of a predefined amount of cryptocurrency at the one of the plurality of pay to addresses, converting the amount to an equivalent amount of fiat currency and transferring fiat currency from the omnibus account to an account associated with the merchant and executing a trade to exchange the cryptocurrency for the fiat currency and then removing the association between the client, the merchant and the pay to address and return the pay to address to the pool for use in conducting a subsequent purchase request which constitutes commercial interactions falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract elements recited in Claims 1 and 19 constitute the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Claim 11 recites at least one processor, a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and memory storing computer-readable instructions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, generally linking the abstract idea to blockchain and cryptocurrency and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not provide a technical improvement such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to technology or to a technical field because they only manipulate financial data. The claims do not invoke a particular machine as our guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, they do not transform matter as they only manipulate data which is not matter.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claims 2, 12 and 20 (enrolling the merchant in an omnibus event processing service corresponding to the omnibus account, wherein enrolling the merchant comprises identifying whether or not autoconversion should be performed for the merchant), Claims 4 and 14 (enrolling the merchant in the omnibus event processing service further comprises identifying whether or not a fee should be collected from the merchant on behalf of an enterprise organization affiliated with the computing platform), Claims 5 and 15 (based on identifying that the fee should be collected from the merchant: removing, from the predefined amount of cryptocurrency associated with the purchase and prior to transferring the funds corresponding to the purchase from the omnibus account to the account associated with the merchant, a second amount of funds, wherein: the second amount of funds corresponds to the fee, removing the second amount of funds from the predefined amount of cryptocurrency results in a third amount of funds, and transferring the funds corresponding to the purchase from the omnibus account to the account associated with the merchant comprises transferring the third amount of funds), Claims 6 and 16 (storing the association between the merchant, the client, and the one of the plurality of pay to addresses; and upon receiving, from the client, a request to make a second purchase from the merchant: monitoring the one of the plurality of pay to addresses for receipt of a second amount of cryptocurrency associated with the second purchase, and upon detecting receipt of the second amount of cryptocurrency, transferring funds corresponding to the second purchase from the omnibus account to the account associated with the merchant, wherein the one of the plurality of pay to addresses is returned to the pool after transferring the funds corresponding to the second purchase), Claims 7 and 17 (the predefined amount of cryptocurrency comprises at least a first amount of a first cryptocurrency and a second amount of a second cryptocurrency), Claims 8 and 18 (sending one or more commands to a client device directing the client device to display a purchase confirmation, wherein sending the one or more commands directing the client device to display the purchase confirmation causes the client device to display the purchase confirmation; and sending one or more commands to a merchant device directing the merchant device to display a payment execution confirmation, wherein sending the one or more commands directing the merchant device to display the payment execution confirmation causes the merchant device to display the payment execution confirmation), Claim 9 (receiving, from the client, the purchase request, wherein the purchase request comprises a request to make a purchase for a purchase amount from the merchant using cryptocurrency), Claim 10 (notifying, directly by the computing platform, the client of the one of the plurality of pay to addresses; and monitoring the one of the plurality of pay to addresses for receipt of the predefined amount of cryptocurrency associated with the purchase), Claim 23 (storing know your customer (KYC) rules associated with the merchant; upon detecting receipt of the predefined amount of cryptocurrency, comparing the predefined amount of cryptocurrency and transaction parameters to the KYC rules; and in response to identifying that the predefined amount of cryptocurrency or the transaction parameters fail to satisfy the KYC rules, automatically refunding the client without merchant intervention) and Claim 24 (transferring the fiat currency from the omnibus account to the account associated with the merchant comprises performing an on-chain send to the account associated with the merchant when blockchain gas fees are below a threshold value) contain additional elements (underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and merely add specificity to the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
As such, Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 and 23-24 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694