Application/Control Number: 18/666,736 Page 2
Art Unit: 3692
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending and are presented to be examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, these rejections are maintained. The amended claim language does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea wherein the central position of the processing server does not improve the functioning of the processing server (computer) itself or improvement to other technology of technical field, but provides for the automation of the fundamental economic concept of performing a settlement [see Specification, ¶0002] through the use of well-known block-chain, and/or by relying on generic computer functions to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible [see Alice, 134 S. Ct 2359(“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept)
It is also the case that, “determining an amount owed…” in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim can be considered an abstract mathematical calculation. Also, encrypting the list of net settlement transactions using a public/private key pair does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, but presents a well-understood routine and conventional activity-that being related to asymmetric cryptography, to secure data/information with mathematical cryptographic algorithms. Thus the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained below.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), the Applicant’s arguments, see starting page 10, filed 08/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under Castagna et al (US 2019/0172059) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in further view of Arora et al (US 2021/01583120.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 11 is directed to a system for performing a simplified settlement.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “performing a settlement” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity, related to concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people and/or satisfying legal obligation in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 1 recites,
“receiving,…, a plurality of settlement transactions from at least a multitude of issuers, wherein each settlement transaction includes an amount, a payer entity, and a payee entity, and wherein each payer entity and payee entity for each settlement transaction is one of a plurality of entities…;
determining an amount owed or an amount due for each of the plurality of entities by
processing,…, the received plurality of settlement transactions to determine an amount owed or an amount due for each entity of the plurality of entities based on at least the amount, the payer entity, and the payee entity for each settlement transaction in the plurality of settlement transactions;
determining,..., a minimum amount of transactions for settlement among the plurality of entities based on at least the amount owed or amount due for each entity of the plurality of entities;
generating,…, a list of net settlement transactions based on the determined minimum amount of transactions, wherein a number of net settlement transactions in the list of net settlement transactions matches the determined minimum amount of transactions, and wherein each net settlement transaction includes an amount, payer entity, and payee entity based on the determined amount owed or amount due for each entity of the plurality of entities;
encrypting,…, the list of net settlement transactions…preventing any other payer entity from identifying payers and payment amounts for other settlement transactions;
transmitting, …, at least the generated list of net settlement transactions …. “
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “a receiver of a processing server”, “processing server”, “a blockchain network”, “block chain node” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts of using rules to performing a settlement.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of performing a settlement using blockchain computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 10 recites, “transmitting,…, each net settlement transaction…” does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception, but further describes the implementation of performing a settlement.
Claims 3 and 11 recites,” generating,…, a list of individual settlements…wherein the list includes each settlement transaction…that involves the respective entity of the plurality of entities, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 12 recites, “transmitting,…, the generated list of individual settlements….” does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception, but further describes the implementation of performing a settlement.
Claims 5 and 13 recites, “determining… a list of settlement amounts which include the amount owed or due under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be abstract mathematical algorithms of calculations to determine the amount owed or amount due.
Claims 6 and 14 recites, “transmitting,.., the generated list of settlement amounts to a second blockchain node..” does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception, but further describes the implementation of performing a settlement.
Claims 7 and 15 recites,” each settlement transaction of the plurality of settlement transactions…wherein the settlement transaction is converted into one of plurality of currency types” can be considered part of the abstract idea of performing a settlement wherein currency is exchanged from one type into another (e.g., FOREX).
Claims 8 and 16 recites, “plurality of entities includes at least five entities” which does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea but may be further part of certain methods of organizing human activity which involve managing relationships or transactions between people.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692