Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/642,387

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ORCHESTRATION OF MOBILE EXCHANGE UTILIZING DECENTRALIZED NON-FUNGIBLE TOKEN IDENTIFICATION AND SECURE NEAR-FIELD COMMUNICATION

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Examiner
KHATRI, NILESH B
Art Unit
3699
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
99 granted / 170 resolved
+6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
198
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 170 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Status of Claims This communication is responsive to the submission filed December 4, 2025. 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 claims recite multiple additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, receiving a transaction request for a transaction, which includes an amount of funds and criteria for where to get the funds, via a customer application is an example of a commercial interaction, i.e., a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Further, 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 is both a Mathematical Concept, i.e., using the teller selection algorithm, as well as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities, sorting a plurality of sources from which to obtain the physical funds. Further, generating and transmitting a notification that includes transaction details to the selected tellers is also an example of a commercial interaction, i.e., a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Receiving an acceptance of the transaction from at least one or the tellers which results in generation of a transaction identifier and a public key also recites a commercial interaction, i.e., a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Facilitating a secure exchange of physical funds is also another example of a commercial interaction, i.e., a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Further, recording the transaction details on a ledger and updating non-fungible token ownership, which also recites a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Therefore, the additional elements Applicant cited to in the claims are actually abstract ideas. As they recite abstract ideas, they cannot serve as a basis to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claims recite additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas is unpersuasive. Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-15, filed December 4, 2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of September 4, 2025, has been withdrawn. 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 and a public key. The system facilitates an exchange of funds using near-field communications and the public key. The system records transaction details on a ledger to finalize the transaction and update non-fungible token ownership. 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) and a public key; facilitating a secure exchange of physical funds using near-field communication based on the generated public key; and recording transaction details on a distributed ledger to finalize the transaction and update non-fungible token ownership. 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 application, and a teller application. 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 application, and a teller application. 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. 2025/0272751 discloses systems and methods receive input(s) to access an interface to facilitate a resource conversion from a first resource of one regional entity to a second resource of foreign regional entity(ies), the entity platform incorporating information of relational database(s), and display of an ordering interface is initiated to order the second resource. A selection input of a specific foreign regional entity is received, and stored current exchange rate data are accessed from relational database(s) that indicate a present exchange rate between the first resource and the second resource. Display of the present exchange rate and control input(s) is initiated for specifying a quantity of the second resource to be exchanged and for indicating a general regional location where the second resource is to be retrieved. An indication of the quantity of the second resource to be exchanged and the general regional location for retrieval of the second resource is received. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597003
Coordination and Management of Digital Asset Endorsements
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591870
SECURE PROCESSING OF CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY (CBDC) CARD PAYMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591877
INTELLIGENT CARD UNLOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586047
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING DATA TRANSFER RECOMMENDATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12548001
SYSTEM FOR BLOCKCHAIN-BASED SHARE SUBSTANTIAL TRADE FOR OWNER UNSPECIFIED COMMON ASSET AND METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+28.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 170 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month