DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 10, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This communication is responsive to the submission filed June 10, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant contends that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, Applicant contends that the amended independent claims recite a practical application of the abstract ideas as the claims now recite specific cryptographic mechanisms and hardware constraints that represent a particular technological implementation for secure peer-to-peer data exchanges. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II). Here, generating a unique transaction identification using a cryptographic hash function and generating a public key using asymmetric encryption algorithm are abstract ideas, specifically Mathematical Concepts, rather than additional elements that could serve to recite a practical application. They are Mathematical Concepts because they directly recite performing mathematical functions (a function and an algorithm). Further, establishing a communication session between a customer and a teller is an example of managing a relationship between the customer and the teller, i.e., close enough to securely communicate, e.g., talk, with each other. Further, verifying a signature is also directed towards managing a relationship between the signer and the verifier. Therefore, such subject matter is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Moreover, updating ownership of a token that represents the transfer of physical funds from the customer to the teller is an example of a commercial interaction as it serves to record such a transfer of funds. In other words, it amounts to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. That a smart contract performs such functionality fails to recite a practical application as the smart contract is a computer program that is used to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract ideas is unpersuasive.
Applicant also analogizes the claims to Example 35 Claims 2 and 3, which were found to be eligible. These claims were found eligible as they recited significantly more than the abstract ideas, i.e., at Step 2B. Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). See MPEP 2106.05(II). However, as noted above, the amended subject matter recites abstract ideas rather than additional elements. Consequently, they also fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Applicant also analogizes the claims to Example 41. In Example 41, the claim recites multiple additional elements beyond the identified Mathematical Concept, such as transforming a plaintext word signal to one or more message block word signals. However, as discussed above, the pending claims fail to recite additional elements that amount to more than implementing the abstract ideas using computers.
Applicant also contends that the amended claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technological field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP 2106.05(a). As noted above, the amended subject matter recites abstract ideas rather than additional elements. The additional elements that are recited are used as tools to implement the abstract ideas. Therefore, when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas as they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea.
Accordingly, this ground of 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 1-3 and 5-7 are directed towards a machine, claims 8-10 and 12-14 are directed towards a manufacture, and claims 15-17 and 19-20 are directed towards a process. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 1: Claim 1, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of facilitating an exchange of funds between two entities and recording the exchange in a ledger. In particular, the claim recites receiving a transaction request for a transaction comprising an amount of funds needed and criteria for selecting a teller. The system then sorts one or more teller options based on the transaction request using a teller selection algorithm. The teller selection algorithm includes assigning weights to criteria for selecting a teller including proximity to a customer, availability of the requested amount of physical funds, a reliability of each teller, and operational hours of the teller. The claim generates and transmits a notification to suitable tellers including transaction details. The system receives an acceptance from a teller, which triggers generating a transaction identifier using a cryptographic hash function applied to a combination of a timestamp, unique identifiers of the customer and teller, and a random nonce. The claim also generates a public key using an asymmetric encryption algorithm. The system facilitates an exchange of funds by establishing a near-field communication session between a customer device and a teller device and verifies the transaction through digital signatures exchanged via the near-field communication session based on the generated public key. The system records transaction details on a ledger via a contract that automatically executes upon confirmation from both the customer application and the teller application. The smart contract updates ownership status of a non-fungible token the represents the physical funds. In other words, the claim recites a combination of Mathematical Concepts as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a processing device;
a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
receiving a transaction request for a transaction via a customer application, the transaction request comprising an amount of physical funds needed and one or more criteria for selecting a teller, wherein the teller is an alternative to an automated teller machine (ATM) device;
activating a teller selection algorithm to sort one or more teller options retrieved from a teller database based on the transaction request to identify one or more suitable tellers, wherein the teller selection algorithm further comprises assigning weights to each of the one or more criteria for selecting a teller, the criteria including at least one of proximity to a customer, an availability of the requested amount of physical funds, a reliability of each teller, and operational hours of the tellers;
generating and transmitting a notification to the one or more suitable tellers via a teller application, wherein the notification includes a subset of transaction details;
receiving an acceptance from at least one of the one or more suitable tellers, triggering a generation of a unique transaction identification (ID) using a cryptographic hash function applied to a combination of a timestamp, unique identifiers of the customer and teller, and a random nonce, and generating a public key using an asymmetric encryption algorithm;
facilitating a secure exchange of physical funds by establishing an encrypted near-field communication session between a customer device and a teller device within a proximity range of less than 10 centimeters, and verifying the transaction through digital signatures exchanged via the near-field communication session based on the generated public key; and
recording transaction details on a distributed ledger via a smart contract that automatically executes upon confirmation from both the customer application and the teller application, wherein the smart contract updates ownership status of a non-fungible token representing the physical funds to reflect transfer from the customer to the teller.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of the processing device, non-transitory storage device, customer device and application, a teller device application, and a smart contract. However, these additional elements are tools that are used to implement the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, as noted above, the claim recites the additional elements of the processing device, non-transitory storage device, customer device and application, a teller device application, and a smart contract. However, these additional elements are tools that are used to implement the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 8: Claim 8 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. However, claim 8 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 also fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 15: Claim 15 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. However, claim 15 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 also fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20: Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the abstract idea of encrypting transaction details before storing the details, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the abstract idea that the customer and teller confirm the transaction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recites the abstract idea of a preferred transaction time and the tellers are selected based on who is available during the preferred transaction time, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities and a Mental Process.
Claims 6 and 13 recite the abstract idea of validating an identity of the teller and customer using signatures, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the abstract idea of using a decryption key to decrypt encrypted transaction messages, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0166745 discloses that a deposit management system is operable responsive to data included on data bearing records. The system is associated with a plurality of financial funds depositories. Each depository can accept deposit items, such as deposit bags. Each depository includes a bar code reader that can read data from a bar code label that is located on a deposit bag. The system allows merchants to preregister a deposit before performing the deposit. A preregistered deposit is linked with a deposit identifier in a data store. The deposit identifier can be represented in a bar code. If the system determines that a bar code reader of a respective depository read a deposit identifier which corresponds in the data store to a preregistered deposit, then the respective depository is operated to automatically unlock its deposit entry door. The system also allows merchants to review their deposit history.
U.S. Patent No. 11,861,575 discloses an automated teller machine (ATM) allows a user with accounts at both a first institution and a second institution to use an ATM of the first institution to physically place cash or a check into the ATM of the first institution for deposit into an account at the second institution. In some cases, a failed attempt message may indicate a funds transfer failed due to a network connectivity issue, an inactive payee account, or an expired payee account number. In case of a network connectivity issue, the funds transfer may be reinitiated. In case of an inactive payee account or expired payee account number, funds may be transferred to the first account instead of the second account. The ATM may display an indication of the failed attempt and a confirmation of a transfer to the first account.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0227913 discloses a system and associated method and service for providing a platform that prevents fraudulent transactions by allowing for the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, and exchange of denomination, including cash, international currencies, digital currency, hard and soft commodities, and coupons to and from members and non-members, in a mobile telecommunications environment, without tendering a financial instrument, such as a credit card or a check.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights