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.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category a system, a method and a method, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or claim 11 or claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea of determine, at a first time interval, a first request to process a first brokerage transaction, wherein the first request comprises first metadata indicating an approved transaction; determine, using the first metadata, a first smart contract template from a set of smart contract templates; generate a first smart contract for the first request using the first smart contract template; send the first smart contract to; send the first smart contract to; determine, using, that the first smart contract is executed via the first blockchain; such that parallel processing of tasks associated with settlement of the first brokerage transaction is performed; determine, using data published on the first blockchain, that the first request is complete; and generate, at a second time interval, a settlement notification indicating the first brokerage transaction is settled. 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 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements of memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions; a first blockchain using a first oracle network; a second blockchain using a second oracle network; via the first blockchain and the second blockchain; a third oracle network to are no more than merely generic computer components and steps applied to the abstract idea to perform the functionalities of the abstract idea steps. The application of the abstract idea to the generation and execution of smart contracts is merely limiting the abstract idea to one field of use and merely applying the blockchain technology.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional elements of memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions; a first blockchain using a first oracle network; a second blockchain using a second oracle network; via the first blockchain and the second blockchain; a third oracle network are no more than merely generic computer components and steps applied to the abstract idea to perform the functionalities of the abstract idea steps, such as determine, send, generate information is merely using generic computer systems and steps as tools to perform the abstract idea (“apply it”). Further the application of the generation and execution of smart contracts for multiple oracle networks technology is additionally merely limiting the field of use to generic blockchain technology. This is supported by the original specification paragraph [0071] any of the elements (for example, one or more user devices 602, one or more computing devices 610, one or more databases 620, and/or any other element described with respect to FIG. 6 or otherwise) of the system 600 may include any of the elements of the computing device 700 as well (such as the processor 702, memory 704, etc.). As to the insignificant extra-solution active, please see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, independent claim 1 or claim 11 or claim 20 is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 12-19, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 11. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are deemed not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims. The examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 based 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 to 101 rejections under step 2A, Prong 2, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements of memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions; a first blockchain using a first oracle network; a second blockchain using a second oracle network; via the first blockchain and the second blockchain; a third oracle network to are no more than merely generic computer components and steps applied to the abstract idea to perform the functionalities of the abstract idea steps. The application of the abstract idea to the generation and execution of smart contracts is merely limiting the abstract idea to one field of use and merely applying the blockchain technology. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claims amendments.
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 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
Prosecution Insights