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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 26, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-7 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine), Claims 8-14 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process), and Claims 15-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receive, from a user computing device, a request to initiate a transaction, wherein the request includes transaction details including a recipient account; receive, from a plurality of entities, data related to connectivity between a first party to the transaction and a second party to the transaction; analyze, in real-time, the data related to connectivity between the first party and the second party; determine, based on the analyzing and in real-time, whether connectivity exists between the first party and the second party; responsive to determining that connectivity exits, authorize the transaction and process the transaction; responsive to determining that connectivity does not exist: retrieve publicly available data related to the first party and the second party; connect to a quantum layer; identify, while connecting to the quantum layer, a node or network to process the publicly available data; determine a number and arrangement of node for processing the publicly available data; generate, using quantum computing, the identified node or network, and the number and arrangement of nodes for processing the publicly available data, an adjacency matrix indicating a likelihood of connectivity, wherein the adjacency matrix is based on the publicly available data related to the first party and the second party; output, based on the adjacency matrix, a likelihood of validity of the recipient account; compare the likelihood of validity to a threshold; responsive to the likelihood of validity meeting or exceeding threshold, authorize the transaction and process the transaction; and responsive to the likelihood of validity not meeting or exceeding the threshold, decline the request to initiate the transaction.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “computing device”, “quantum layer”, “node or network”, “quantum computing”, and “adjacency matrix” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because entities interact with one another to exchange information or data such as a request, connectivity data, publicly available data, etc. for transactions.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A computing platform, comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:”, “A method, comprising:”, “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, memory, and a communication interface, cause the computing platform to:”, “computing device”, “quantum layer”, “node or network”, “quantum computing”, and “adjacency matrix”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Step 2B, 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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20:
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 only further elaborate the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements.
Dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 include additional limitations, for example, “adjacency matrix” (Claims 5, 12, and 19); “data hydration process” (Claims 6, 13, and 20), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cella (WO 2024186954 A2).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Cella teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and Cella further teaches A computing platform, comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0015, 0020, 0007): A method, comprising (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0013-0014): One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, memory, and a communication interface, cause the computing platform to (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0335):
receive, from a user computing device, a request to initiate a transaction, wherein the request includes transaction details including a recipient account (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0500, 0471 teach(es) in response to a transaction request from an employee to perform an outbound transaction to a third party, the permissions system may determine whether to allow or deny the transaction request; the identity of the recipient of the payment; the employee may only be permitted to initiate transactions for certain types of services from approved vendor; the permissions system may be configured to receive transaction data indicating the requesting entity (e.g., an identifier of the employee), the transaction amount, the transaction medium (e.g., digital wallet identifier, account identifier, or the like), an identifier of the payee, and an identifier of the purpose of the payment (e.g., invoice identifier, a description or other identifier of the goods, services, or thing being paid for)); receive, from a plurality of entities, data related to connectivity between a first party to the transaction and a second party to the transaction (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0612, 0652 teach(es) the EAL may be configured for peer-to-peer connectivity among a set of enterprises (e.g., bilateral connectivity or multilateral connectivity), such that the functions and capabilities of the EAL are configured to handle the particular types of assets, resources, workflows and transactions that occur among the enterprises); analyze, in real-time, the data related to connectivity between the first party and the second party; determine, based on the analyzing and in real-time, whether connectivity exists between the first party and the second party (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0652-0653, 0657, 0667 teach(es) a graph may include an indication of a degree of connectivity of one or more nodes and/or edges within the graph (e.g., a graph of a social network including nodes that are ranked according to a count of other nodes to which each node is connected by one or more edges, and/or a degree of significance of a relationship represented by an edge based on the nature of the relationship and/or the degrees of the nodes connected by the edge)); responsive to determining that connectivity exits, authorize the transaction and process the transaction(Cella: Paragraph(s) 0612 teach(es) the EAL may be configured for peer-to-peer connectivity among a set of enterprises (e.g., bilateral connectivity or multilateral connectivity), such that the functions and capabilities of the EAL 100 are configured to handle the particular types of assets, resources, workflows and transactions that occur among the enterprises; A peer-to-peer EAL may be established between a manufacturer or retailer with a set of preferred, customers, such as repeat customers, such that the EAL allows the preferred customers access to view inventories (as presented in a wallet) in a manner that has priority over the access by the general public); responsive to determining that connectivity does not exist: retrieve publicly available data related to the first party and the second party (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0896, 0644 teach(es) PAAI may have use-cases in issuing for analysis of market conditions to help issuers with the size, structure, and timing of issuing, credit-risk assessment and rating of issuers derived from ever-increasing publicly-available data, new data sources to help investors with pricing, etc.); connect to a quantum layer (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0335, 1101, 1105 teach(es) a quantum computing processor; a quantum algorithm system-on-chip); identify, while connecting to the quantum layer, a node or network to process the publicly available data (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0335, 0473, 0865 teach(es) the digital wallet stores or otherwise maintains a private key associated with the blockchain account, such that blockchain wallet digitally signs blockchain transactions using the private key and the nodes of blockchain network verify and effectuate the transaction by verifying the digital signature using a public key of the blockchain account); determine a number and arrangement of node for processing the publicly available data; generate, using quantum computing, the identified node or network, and the number and arrangement of nodes for processing the publicly available data, an adjacency matrix indicating a likelihood of connectivity, wherein the adjacency matrix is based on the publicly available data related to the first party and the second party (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0644-0646, 0650, 0665, 0764, 0620 teach(es) a graph data, set representing a social network may include thousands of nodes that represent people and millions of edges that represent relationships among the people; Edges that represent a multidimensional mapping of connections between nodes (such as an NxN mapping of edges that represent possible connections between nodes) can be referred to as an adjacency matrix; Quantum computation may also facilitate massively parallel processing in form factors that are faster, more energy efficient, or the like; in a graph data set representing a geographic region, the graph may include graph properties such as a total number of nodes and/or cities, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional area represented by the graph, and/or a latitude and/or longitude of a center of the graph. Such graph properties may be global graph properties that correspond to one or more properties of all of the nodes of the graph); output, based on the adjacency matrix, a likelihood of validity of the recipient account (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0499, 0547 teach(es) predicted likelihood of executing a given transaction with a given party, identification of parties that are likely to buy or sell a given asset; the machine learning algorithm, which generates a likelihood of the permissions being consonant with the entity or role); compare the likelihood of validity to a threshold; responsive to the likelihood of validity meeting or exceeding threshold, authorize the transaction and process the transaction; and responsive to the likelihood of validity not meeting or exceeding the threshold, decline the request to initiate the transaction (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0547 teach(es) When the likelihood is low (below a threshold), the permissions for that entity or role may be automatically adjusted -- at least on a temporary basis -- to be more strict and a workflow may be initiated in the workflow system to review whether the permissions can be relaxed again).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Cella teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and Cella further teaches further including instructions that, when executed, cause the computing platform to: generate, in real-time, a likelihood of connectivity score based on the publicly available data (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0660, 0499, 0547, 0896 teach(es) in a graph data set that represents the World Wide Web and that includes nodes that represent web pages and directed edges that represent hyperlinks of linking web pages to linked web pages, a graph neural network may determine one or more scores of each node (i.e., each web page) based on the scores of other nodes that hyperlink to the node).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Cella teaches all the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18 above; and Cella further teaches wherein the adjacency matrix is further based on the likelihood of connectivity score (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0644-0646, 0660 teach(es) Edges that represent a multidimensional mapping of connections between nodes (such as an NxN mapping of edges that represent possible connections between nodes) can be referred to as an adjacency matrix).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Cella teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above; and Cella further teaches wherein the plurality of entities includes a plurality of registered financial institutions (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0837, 0865, 0440 teach(es) financial regulation standards know your customer/know your transactor (KYC/KYT); management of parties (e.g., detecting hackers in digital twin) such as requiring participants to register; The information requested can include name, salary, car model, financial institution of the loan requester, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella (WO 2024186954 A2), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in view of Sliwka (US 20240261692 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Cella teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; however Cella does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold is specific to an entity associated with a sender account associated with the transaction.
Sliwka from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the threshold is specific to an entity associated with a sender account associated with the transaction (Sliwka: Paragraph(s) 0403 teach(es) the contingent buyer may provide evidentiary documents (e.g., bank statements, tax statements, or the like) to prove a liquidity threshold is met, thereby providing confidence that the contingent buyer can afford to complete the sale, should the borrower default).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cella to incorporate the teachings of Sliwka for wherein the threshold is specific to an entity associated with a sender account associated with the transaction.
There is motivation to combine Sliwka into Cella because Sliwka’s teachings of a threshold based on parties of the transaction would facilitate the transaction verification (Sliwka: Paragraph(s) 0403).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Cella and Sliwka teaches all the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 above; however Cella does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold is customized by the entity associated with the sender account associated with the transaction.
Sliwka further teaches wherein the threshold is customized by the entity associated with the sender account associated with the transaction (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0403, as stated above with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Cella and Sliwka to incorporate the teachings of Sliwka for wherein the threshold is specific to an entity associated with a sender account associated with the transaction.
There is motivation to combine Sliwka into the combination of Cella and Sliwka because Sliwka’s teachings of a threshold based on parties of the transaction would facilitate the transaction verification (Sliwka: Paragraph(s) 0403).
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella (WO 2024186954 A2), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in view of Jain (US 11750574 B1).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, Cella teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; however Cella does not explicitly teach further including instructions that, when executed, cause the computing platform to: execute a data hydration process causing data related to connectivity to be imported to one or more entities of the plurality of entities.
Jain from same or similar field of endeavor teaches further including instructions that, when executed, cause the computing platform to: execute a data hydration process causing data related to connectivity to be imported to one or more entities of the plurality of entities (Jain: Col. 11, lines 34-46; Col. 10, lines 40-45 teach(es) the hydration process can be performed by any messaging platform or communication system, even if it is not primarily an end-to-end encryption-based platform or system. Thus, end-to-end encrypted interactive messaging is possible on cross-platform or cross-system architectures).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cella to incorporate the teachings of Jain for further including instructions that, when executed, cause the computing platform to: execute a data hydration process causing data related to connectivity to be imported to one or more entities of the plurality of entities.
There is motivation to combine Jain into Cella because Jain’s teachings of hydration process would facilitate interactive messaging on cross-platform or cross-system architectures (Jain: Col. 11, lines 34-46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “The claims are not directed to commercial interactions and, instead, are directed to a system leveraging quantum data processing to determine connectivity between users” (Page 10 of Remarks) and “the claimed invention improves technology because it uses advanced computational techniques to determine connectivity between users in order to verify validity of an account” (Page 13 of Remarks), examiner respectfully argues that the quantum computing including quantum layer or the computational techniques are recited in the claims without any technical details, thus not providing any improvements of the functioning of the computer or other technology or technical field or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition, processing data related to connectivity between parties for estimating a likelihood of connectivity can be performed manually by people. It is recommend for the applicant to amend the claims with more technical details and contexts of entities, parties, transaction, quantum computing, adjacency matrix, etc.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “predicting a likelihood of executing a transaction does not constitute outputting a likelihood of validity of a recipient account, as recited in claim 1” and “nothing in Cella teaches or suggests that the intelligence system predictions, or the permissions monitoring and controls (the alleged likelihood of validity of the recipient account) is determined based on the social network graph described in Cella (the alleged adjacency matrix)” (Page 15 of Remarks), examiner respectfully argues that Cella teaches predicted likelihood of executing a given transaction with a given party, which is obviously related to validity of a recipient account (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0499, 0547), and that a graph data, set representing a social network may include thousands of nodes that represent people and millions of edges that represent relationships among the people, requiring a graph neural network featuring millions of weights that connect the input graph data set to the nodes of a first layer of the graph neural network (Cella: Paragraph(s) 0644).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quigley (US 20230245101 A1) teaches Cost Analytics For Cryptographic Tokens That Link To Real World Objects, including quantum computing and likelihood.
Lohe (US 20210266167 A1) teaches Social Aggregating, Fractionally Efficient Transfer Guidance, Conditional Triggered Transaction, Datastructures, Apparatuses, Methods And Systems, including social network and adjacency matrix.
Nicholls (WO 2025073354 A1) teaches Illicit Transaction Identification, including that scores are selected, and their edges are used to create a new adjacency matrix.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699