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 action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/30/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 13 and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 101 rejection starting on page 17 of the response.
Applicant argues that the specification defines the term transaction in a manner that does not invoke 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the specification recites at [0036] “The smart contract is implemented by code that is deployed on a shared ledger and that is executed when a certain condition is met. According to a service requirement, the code implementation is configured for completing an automated transaction, for example, querying a delivery status of goods purchased by a purchaser, transferring electronic money of the purchaser to an address of a merchant after the purchaser signs for the goods, and the like. In the embodiments of this application, the smart contract is a contract invoked during transaction execution.” Therefore the specification still supports an interpretation of transaction as involving purchase of goods or service that includes the transfer of electronic money.
Thus applicants’ arguments regarding step 2A prong 1 are not persuasive.
Applicant further argue step 2A prong 2 starting on page 19 of the response.
Applicant argus that the claims improve the efficiency of transaction and cite paragraph [0009] of the specification.
Examiners respectfully disagree, A reduction of load on the computer does not bring about an improvement to the computer, it merely offers resources to other processes that are running on the computer. Furthermore the improvement to the efficiency of transaction represents an abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Applicant further argues step 2b starting on page 20 of the response.
Applicant argues that the claims re not conventional as there is not prior art rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the prior art does not affect the 101 analysis. The argues improvement amounts to an abstract idea and therefore does not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-6, and 8-20 are 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 1-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 13 and 17 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed.
Claim 1 recites “transaction processing” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a “transaction processing”
Claim 1 recites:
A blockchain-based transaction processing method comprising:
generating at least two transaction sequences based on a smart contract invoked by each transaction in a transaction set and a contract dependency relationship, smart contracts respectively invoked by two transactions belonging to different transaction sequences being independent, and the contract dependency relationship comprising dependency information respectively corresponding to each smart contract and another smart contract;
executing the at least two transaction sequences in parallel, to obtain an operation object set of each transaction;
traversing the transaction set, and adjusting an execution order of each target transaction in the at least two transaction sequences based on the operation object set of each transaction, the target transaction being a traversed transaction and comprising a common operation object with at least one non-traversed transaction the adjusting comprising: determining, based on the operation object set of each transaction, a first operation object set corresponding to the traversed transaction and at least one operation object set corresponding to the at least one non-traversed transaction; when the first operation object set and the at least one operation object set comprise the common operation object, determining the traversed transaction as the target transaction and combining the non-traversed transaction comprising the common operation object with the target transaction into a second conflict transaction set; and adjusting the execution order of the target transaction to be after the second conflict transaction set in the at least two transaction sequences; and
re-executing each target transaction based on an adjusted execution order after traversing the transaction set.
The additional elements of claim 1, 13 and 17 such as “Smart contract” “a memory, configured to store a computer program or a computer-executable instruction; and a processor, configured to implement, when executing the computer program or the computer-executable instruction in the memory, a blockchain-based transaction processing method, performed by a transaction processing device, comprising:”, and “ A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program or a computer-executable instruction stored therein, wherein when the computer program or the computer-executable instruction is executed by a processor, to implement a blockchain-based transaction processing method, comprising:” 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 transaction processing.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of transaction processing,
Hence, claims 1, 13 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18-20 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
The prior art does not specifically teach or render obvious:
“wherein the dependency information comprises at least one of a probability of dependence” and “determining a first operation object set corresponding to a traversed transaction based on the operation object set of each transaction, and at least one operation object set corresponding to at least one non-traversed transaction; when the first operation object set and the at least one operation object set comprise a common operation object, determining the traversed transaction as the target transaction, and combining the non-traversed transaction comprising the common operation object with the target transaction into a second conflict transaction set;”
Narayanam (US 2021/0318859 A1) Teaches: Optimization of executions of smart contract.
Shi (CN 110599166 A1) Teaches”: Method for obtaining transaction dependence relationship in a block chain.
Qiu (WO 2021/032115 A1) Teaches: Method for parallel execution of smart contracts.
Conclusion
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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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 Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights