DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 4/27/2026. Amendments to claims 1, 11 and 19 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process, claim 11 is directed to a system and claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for currency conversion and transfer from one party to another party based on an exchange rate and predefined distribution schedule, which is a commercial or legal interaction, agreements in the form of contracts and business relations, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, in bold below and stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
identifying, by one or more processing circuits, one or more assets of an asset class corresponding to an asset grouping framework, wherein the one or more assets corresponds to a right to performance in a first currency from one or more entities, and wherein the one or more assets comprise one or more distribution parameters corresponding to a distribution in a second currency to a receiving party based on a predefined distribution schedule;
generating, by the one or more processing circuits, one or more smart contracts comprising executable code to monitor an off-chain condition of the one or more assets and an exchanges rate between the first currency and the second currency, wherein the off-chain condition corresponds to a plurality of access locations for a plurality of off-chain data feeds that are accessed by the one or more smart contracts;
broadcasting, by the one or more processing circuits, the one or more smart contracts to one or more distributed ledgers, wherein broadcasting comprises propagating the one or more smart contracts to a plurality of network nodes;
receiving, by the one or more processing circuits and from the one or more smart contracts, an indication that the off-chain condition is satisfied, wherein the indication comprises a current exchange rate between the first currency and the second currency, and wherein the indication further comprises smart contract validation information corresponding to at least one timestamp and at least one source verification of the plurality of off-chain data feeds, the source verification corresponding to an origin of at least one of the plurality of off-chain data feeds, the origin corresponding to a network endpoint of an off-chain data feed provider, and wherein the smart contract validation information further comprises a cryptographic hash of data provided by the off-chain data feed provider, the one or more smart contracts configured to cross-check the at least one timestamp and the cryptographic hash, and to verify the off-chain data feed provider corresponds to a trusted provider;
in response to the indication by the one or more smart contracts, processing, by the one or more processing circuits, an exchange conversion from the first currency to the second currency based on the current exchange rate, wherein processing the exchange conversion comprises updating a plurality of ledger balances and to reflect a pending exchange and temporarily locking exchange funds, wherein temporarily locking the exchange funds comprises generating an escrow condition in the one or more distributed ledgers, embedding the current exchange rate into a transaction block that is verified and appended to the one or more distributed ledgers, and marking the exchange funds as unavailable for other exchanges until the transfer or a cancelation event is confirmed; and
transferring, by the one or more processing circuits, the second currency to a wallet of the receiving party, wherein transferring comprises validating a wallet credential of the receiving party and executing a confirmed ledger exchange to finalize the pending exchange.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “one or more processing circuits”, and “one or more smart contracts to one or more distributed ledgers, …. to a plurality of network nodes” in claim 1, and “a data processing system comprising at least one processing circuit comprising at least one memory coupled to at least one processor”, “one or more smart contracts comprising executable code” and “one or more smart contracts to one or more distributed ledgers, …. to a plurality of network nodes” in claim 11 and “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) comprising one or more instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processing circuit”, “one or more smart contracts comprising executable code” and “one or more smart contracts to one or more distributed ledgers, …. to a plurality of network nodes” in claim 19, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. “Broadcasting” is interpreted as sending data/information from one computing device to another for storage as defined in paragraph [0007]. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea as do claims 11 and 19.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed with smart contracts on distributed ledgers communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of identifying, generating, broadcasting, receiving, processing and transferring. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network and storing and updating distributed ledgers, i.e. databases in a blockchain network, see at least FIGs. 1A, 1B and 2 and paragraphs [0027], [0029-0030], [0032-0034], [0040], “For example, the contract generation system 114 may use predefined algorithms to automatically generate smart contracts customized to specific asset conditions and currency exchange parameters.”, [0045], [0065], [0074] and [0114-0115] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea as are claims 11 and 19.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible and neither are claims 11 and 19.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of currency conversion and transfer from one party to another party based on an exchange rate and predefined distribution schedule, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2, 12 and 20 further refine the abstract idea steps. Securitizing, determining a projected distribution at the predefined schedule, transmitting the projected distribution at the predefined schedule to a receiving party and receiving a signed agreement in the second currency can all be completed manually and/or through mental evaluation and observation but or the nominal recitation of the generic computing elements, i.e. automating a manual process. Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by monitoring assets and exchange rates. The smart contracts are merely programming, i.e. automating, an otherwise manual and mental process. Stating that the executable code is compatible with each or one of the ledgers does not provide any technological implementation details such that this is anything more than software programmed on a generic computer. Claims 5 and 15 further refine the abstract idea at a very high level of generality by determining access location of data feeds for assets and exchange rates, i.e. data used for the abstract idea. The determining can be completed through mental evaluation as there is no technical detail as to how determining is performed. Claims 6 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by defining “locking” as capturing and recording exchange rates at a point in time by querying data feeds which can all be completed manually but for the recitation of generic computing elements. Further, the claims merely define distribution parameters of the receiving party, i.e. contract agreement, for the currency conversion to take place. Claims 7 and 17 recite the additional element of leveraging an artificial intelligence model, i.e. an iterative algorithm, to produce a predicted distribution parameter output based on historical input an entities profile. This is a mathematical process claimed at a very high level of generality and applied to the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by programming future contract details, i.e. automating the abstract idea steps, into smart contracts for execution. These steps can be completed manually and through mental evaluation but for the programming of software on generic computers. Claim 9 further defines broadcasting as signing and verifying the smart contracts, i.e. the currency conversion contract details, before storing said contracts in generic databases. Storing is an insignificant extra-solution activity and the signing and verifying are claimed at a very high level of generality such that it can be completed manually through mental evaluation. Transferring currency to a receiving entity further refines the abstract idea. The cross-ledger protocol exchanges data between ledgers and is leveraged for what is already known, see at least paragraphs [0053] and [0070] of the specification, and used as designed. The cryptographic validation is claimed at a very high level of generality and is also comparing hashes with expected hashes to validate data integrity, see at least paragraph [0095], as is known in blockchain technology. Claim 10 merely defines the different types of currency that can be exchanged with nothing significantly more. This is further refining the abstract idea through automating these abstract idea steps.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for currency conversion and transfer from one party to another party based on an exchange rate and predefined distribution schedule) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed within a blockchain network and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for currency conversion and transfer from one party to another party based on an exchange rate and predefined distribution schedule) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that 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 or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks of 4/13/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Without acquiescing to or agreeing with the rejections, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11, and 19 herein. In view of the foregoing amendments, Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 11, and 19 are not directed toward an abstract idea, and even arguendo if considered to be directed to an abstract idea, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea and/or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea itself. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 11, and 19 are directed toward statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim language, “, and wherein the smart contract validation information further comprises a cryptographic hash of data provided by the off-chain data feed provider, the one or more smart contracts configured to cross-check the at least one timestamp and the cryptographic hash, and to verify the off-chain data feed provider corresponds to a trusted provider;”, does not provide 101 eligibility. For example merely defining that the validation information comprises a cryptographic hash provided by the data feed provider is defining information with nothing more. The term “cross-check” is found in paragraph [0095], “For example, the processor can cross-check the timestamps with the current system time to confirm data relevancy. In another example, the processor can compare the cryptographic hashes with the expected hash values to validate data integrity.” There is no technical implementation details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret this as merely comparing received information to known information which I s an abstract concept itself and can be performed through mental evaluation but for the nominal recitation of generic computer elements.
Currency conversion and exchange existed well before the current technology was developed. This is a business problem and abstract idea that did not emerge from the advent of computers, networks and blockchain technology. Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements operating within a blockchain network to automate a manual process.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
In light of the Alice decision and the guidance provided in the 2019 PEG, the features listed in the claims, are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. At best these features may be considered to be a business solution, using computers, to a problem of currency conversion and transfer from one party to another party based on an exchange rate and predefined distribution schedule. The alleged benefits of Applicants invention are due to business decisions, using computers and blockchain technology, rather than any improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. By relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 “use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept). As discussed in the rejection above, the components of the instant system, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these components. At best, Applicant has claimed features that may improve an abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still abstract, (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (‘“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”’
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. There is nothing, for example, in the pending claims to suggest that the claimed “one or more processing circuits”, and “one or more smart contracts to one or more distributed ledgers, …. to a plurality of network nodes” in claim 1, and “a data processing system comprising at least one processing circuit comprising at least one memory coupled to at least one processor”, “one or more smart contracts comprising executable code” and “one or more smart contracts to one or more distributed ledgers, …. to a plurality of network nodes” in claim 11 and “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) comprising one or more instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processing circuit”, “one or more smart contracts comprising executable code” and “one or more smart contracts to one or more distributed ledgers, …. to a plurality of network nodes” in claim 19, are somehow made more efficient or that the manner in which these elements carry out their basic functions is otherwise improved in any way. The alleged advantages argued do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in currency conversion and transfer from one party to another party based on an exchange rate and predefined distribution schedule, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
In summary, the computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejections above, rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights