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 .
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 9-12, 14-22 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a method, a method, a method respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 9 or claim 19 or 28 is directed to an abstract idea of comprising first data for a trade of an object; comprising second data for the trade of the object; executing a smart contract that defines trading instructions for the trade of the object, the smart contract including data associated with a user account and a location of the object, authenticating the trade when the first data of matches the second data of and store data according to the trading instructions; and storing data for the trade in; and wherein executing the smart contract includes accessing and evaluating information stored in, the information including token data identifying the object. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 9 or claim 19 or 28 include: connecting a first server to a first distributed ledger; transmitting, via a first router with a first distributed object broker proxy, the first distributed ledger; connecting a second server to a second distributed ledger; transmitting, via a second router with a second distributed object broker proxy, the second distributed ledger; receiving, on a third server via a third distributed object broker proxy in communication with the first and second distributed object broker proxies, the first distributed ledger and the second distributed ledger; via the third server the first distributed ledger; the second distributed ledger; a primary ledger; wherein communication between the first server, the second server, and the third server Is restricted to communication via the first distributed object proxy, the second distributed object proxy, the third distributed object broker proxy, or another distributed object broker proxy; at least one of the primary ledger and the first and second distributed ledgers. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed method. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of connecting a first server to a first distributed ledger; transmitting, via a first router with a first distributed object broker proxy, the first distributed ledger; connecting a second server to a second distributed ledger; transmitting, via a second router with a second distributed object broker proxy, the second distributed ledger; receiving, on a third server via a third distributed object broker proxy in communication with the first and second distributed object broker proxies, the first distributed ledger and the second distributed ledger; via the third server the first distributed ledger; the second distributed ledger; a primary ledger; wherein communication between the first server, the second server, and the third server Is restricted to communication via the first distributed object proxy, the second distributed object proxy, the third distributed object broker proxy, or another distributed object broker proxy; at least one of the primary ledger and the first and second distributed ledgers is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and recites the steps of data manipulation. In the current claim limitation, a server is generic server. The applicant has not improved the server. In the current claim limitation, the router is generic router. The applicant has not improved the router. In the current claim limitation, the proxy is generic proxy. The applicant has not improved the proxy. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 19 and 28 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 9, 19 and 28 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 10-12, 14-18 and 29, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 9. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 20-22, 24-27 and 30, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 19. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 1/16/2026, with respect to objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 11, 18, 21 and 27 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claims amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims, canceled claims 13 and 23 and added the new claims 28-30, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to rejection under § 101 and claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of comprising first data for a trade of an object; comprising second data for the trade of the object; executing a smart contract that defines trading instructions for the trade of the object, the smart contract including data associated with a user account and a location of the object, authenticating the trade when the first data of matches the second data of and store data according to the trading instructions; and storing data for the trade in; and wherein executing the smart contract includes accessing and evaluating information stored in, the information including token data identifying the object. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
The claim is business solution to a business problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to conventional and generic use of authenticating a transaction using a smart contract, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, a server is generic server. The applicant has not improved the server. In the current claim limitation, the router is generic router. The applicant has not improved the router. In the current claim limitation, the proxy is generic proxy. The applicant has not improved the proxy. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to step 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of connecting a first server to a first distributed ledger; transmitting, via a first router with a first distributed object broker proxy, the first distributed ledger; connecting a second server to a second distributed ledger; transmitting, via a second router with a second distributed object broker proxy, the second distributed ledger; receiving, on a third server via a third distributed object broker proxy in communication with the first and second distributed object broker proxies, the first distributed ledger and the second distributed ledger; via the third server the first distributed ledger; the second distributed ledger; a primary ledger; wherein communication between the first server, the second server, and the third server Is restricted to communication via the first distributed object proxy, the second distributed object proxy, the third distributed object broker proxy, or another distributed object broker proxy; at least one of the primary ledger and the first and second distributed ledgers is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and recites the steps of data manipulation. In the current claim limitation, a server is generic server. The applicant has not improved the server. In the current claim limitation, the router is generic router. The applicant has not improved the router. In the current claim limitation, the proxy is generic proxy. The applicant has not improved the proxy. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695