DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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/Arguments
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that “the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the disclosed systems and methods improve at least the functioning of the hybrid blockchain...” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) processing onboarding request and offering product and services. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, by one or more ... and from a first system over an ..., a transmission message including a plurality of data of a first entity; receiving, by the one or more ... and from the first system over the ..., a plurality of data of a second entity; transmitting, by the one or more ... and to the first system, a data scheme including a plurality of parameters for processing transactions; creating, by the one or more ..., a hybrid block in a ..., the hybrid block including the data scheme including the plurality of parameters for processing transactions; generating, by the one or more ..., an onboarding decision based on the plurality of data of the first entity and the plurality of parameters for processing; storing, by the one or more ..., information about a hierarchical relationship between the second entity and the first entity in a ...external to the ...based on the onboarding decision; writing, by the one or more ..., the plurality of data of the first entity, the plurality of data of the second entity and the onboarding decision to the hybrid block in the ..., wherein participation is controlled in the ..., participants remain anonymous in the ..., and wherein access to transactions are controlled by permissions base on the hierarchical relationship between the second entity and the first entity; transmitting, by the one or more ..., an ...offer of a product or a service uniquely associated with the first entity based on the onboarding decision and the plurality of data of the first entity stored on the ... and one or more attributes of the product or the service; transmitting, by the one or more ... and to a ... associated with the second entity, a ... as an interface for accessing the onboarding decision and the plurality of data of the first entity stored on the...; accessing, by the ... associated with the second entity and in the ..., the plurality of data of the first entity and the onboarding decision based on the permissions; determining, by the one or more ..., a score based on a combination of profile data of the first entity and attributes of an additional product or an additional service, based on the accessing; and transmitting, by the one or more ..., an additional ... offer of the additional product or the additional service based on determining the score.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for processing onboarding request and offering product and services. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an acquirer system (Fig. 1 item 100) processes an sub-merchant onboarding request and offers product and services to the newly onboarded sub-merchant. Contrary to applicant’s statement that it “improve at least the functioning of the hybrid blockchain”, the acquirer system records data in a hybrid blockchain (similar to a database). This is what a blockchain used for – storing data. The claims are not directed to any improvement in hybrid blockchain technology. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of hybrid blockchain. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves hybrid blockchain.
The applicant further argues that “the amended claims do recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the amended claims at least recite elements directed to creating a hybrid block in a hybrid blockchain, the hybrid block including the data scheme including the plurality of parameters for processing transactions,...” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of processors, electronic network, hybrid blockchain, database, electronic offer, user device, portal, data storage device, electronic storage and computer system merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing onboarding request and offering products and services) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As described above, contrary to applicant’s statement that it “improve at least the functioning of the hybrid blockchain”, the claims recite recording data into hybrid blockchain. The claims are not directed to any improvement in hybrid blockchain technology. The specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of hybrid blockchain neither.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system, and 15-20 are directed to a CRM. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) processing onboarding request. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, by one or more ... and from a first system over an ..., a transmission message including a plurality of data of a first entity; receiving, by the one or more ... and from the first system over the ..., a plurality of data of a second entity; transmitting, by the one or more ... and to the first system, a data scheme including a plurality of parameters for processing transactions; creating, by the one or more ..., a hybrid block in a ..., the hybrid block including the data scheme including the plurality of parameters for processing transactions; generating, by the one or more ..., an onboarding decision based on the plurality of data of the first entity and the plurality of parameters for processing; storing, by the one or more ..., information about a hierarchical relationship between the second entity and the first entity in a ...external to the ...based on the onboarding decision; writing, by the one or more ..., the plurality of data of the first entity, the plurality of data of the second entity and the onboarding decision to the hybrid block in the ..., wherein participation is controlled in the ..., participants remain anonymous in the ..., and wherein access to transactions are controlled by permissions base on the hierarchical relationship between the second entity and the first entity; transmitting, by the one or more ..., an ...offer of a product or a service uniquely associated with the first entity based on the onboarding decision and the plurality of data of the first entity stored on the ... and one or more attributes of the product or the service; transmitting, by the one or more ... and to a ... associated with the second entity, a ... as an interface for accessing the onboarding decision and the plurality of data of the first entity stored on the...; accessing, by the ... associated with the second entity and in the ..., the plurality of data of the first entity and the onboarding decision based on the permissions; determining, by the one or more ..., a score based on a combination of profile data of the first entity and attributes of an additional product or an additional service, based on the accessing; and transmitting, by the one or more ..., an additional ... offer of the additional product or the additional service based on determining the score.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for processing onboarding request. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of processors, electronic network, hybrid blockchain, database, electronic offer, user device, portal, data storage device, electronic storage and computer system merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing onboarding request) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of using processors, electronic network, hybrid blockchain, database, electronic offer, user device, portal, data storage device, electronic storage and computer system to process onboarding request steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 describe the hybrid blockchain. Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 describe the electronic offer. Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 describe the receiving data of the first entity. Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 describe processing transaction for the first entity. Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 describe providing data of first and second entities to third party for background check. Dependent claims 7 and 14 describe background check. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of processors, electronic network, hybrid blockchain, database, electronic offer, user device, portal, data storage device, electronic storage and computer system merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of processing onboarding request. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a processors, electronic network, hybrid blockchain, database, electronic offer, user device, portal, data storage device, electronic storage and computer system as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of record is US20170169404A1 (“Mudulodu et al.”). Mudulodu et al. teaches receiving, by one or more processors and from a first system over an electronic network, a transmission message including a plurality of data of a first entity; (Fig. 1 items 125, 114 and 110; ¶0002, ¶0004 and ¶¶0023-26) receiving, by the one or more processors and from the first system over the electronic network, a plurality of data of a second entity; (Fig. 2 steps 202, 204, 206 and 208; ¶0002, ¶0004 and ¶¶0023-26); transmitting, by the one or more processors and to the first system, a data scheme including a plurality of parameters for processing transactions; (¶0015 and ¶0023); generating, by the one or more processors, an onboarding decision based on the plurality of data of the first entity and the plurality of parameters for processing; (¶0025) However, the prior art does not teach creating, by the one or more processors, a hybrid block in a hybrid blockchain, the hybrid block including the data scheme including the plurality of parameters for processing transactions; storing, by the one or more processors, information about a hierarchical relationship between the second entity and the first entity in a database external to the hybrid blockchain based on the onboarding decision; writing, by the one or more processors, the plurality of data of the first entity, the plurality of data of the second entity and the onboarding decision to the hybrid block in the hybrid blockchain, wherein participation is controlled in the hybrid blockchain, participants remain anonymous in the hybrid blockchain, and wherein access to transactions are controlled by permissions based on the hierarchical relationship between the second entity and the first entity; transmitting, by the one or more processors, an electronic offer of a product or a service uniquely associated with the first entity based on the onboarding decision and the plurality of data of the first entity stored on the hybrid blockchain and one or more attributes of the product or the service; transmitting, by the one or more processors and to a user device associated with the second entity, a portal as an interface for accessing the onboarding decision and the plurality of data of the first entity stored on the hybrid blockchain; accessing, by the user device associated with the second entity and in the hybrid blockchain, the plurality of data of the first entity and the onboarding decision based on the permissions; determining, by the one or more processors, a score based on a combination of profile data of the first entity and attributes of an additional product or an additional service, based on the accessing; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, an additional electronic offer of the additional product or the additional service based on determining the score.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US7103570B1 (“Morea et al.”) discloses a merchant account activation system that includes an Internet server that works in conjunction with a master account file operating on a mainframe computer and an expert computer system that is used to configure point-of-sale terminals. Many of the steps of the activation procedure are performed by a merchant activation routine running on the Internet server, which allows a merchant to apply for a merchant account during an on-line session conducted with the Internet server. The merchant activation routine obtains application information from the applicant during an on-line session, conducts a credit check and "scores" the application as a credit risk during the on-line session.
US20190272537A1 (“Miller et al.”) discloses a system and method for use of distributed ledger technology for recording and utilizing credit account transaction information.
US10963846B1 (“Cunliffe et al.”) discloses techniques for automated integration between services provided by a service provider.
US20200074461A1 (“DeRosa-Grund”) discloses a transaction platform including at least one or more public, public-private and/or private distributed ledgers or blockchains that together enable the secure effectuation and recordation of one or more transactions while maintaining transaction party confidentiality. The private distributed ledgers or blockchains are able to store, maintain and provide information about the parties related to the transactions which the distributed blockchains or databases are able to utilize in order to securely and quickly validate, execute and record the transactions in a manner that is GDPR and other data privacy law complaint.
US20140279533A1 (“Hamilton et al.”) discloses methods and systems for providing a real-time application programming interface for merchant enrollment and underwriting. In one embodiment, a process is disclosed that may include receiving, from a first computing device, a request for applying for the merchant financial account for a merchant applicant. The request may also include verifying the information associated with the merchant applicant and providing, via the first computing device, at least one question with a plurality of answer choices to the merchant applicant if the merchant applicant information associated with the applicant is verified. In one aspect, the method may include receiving an answer choice to the at least one question from the merchant applicant via the first computing device and validating the received answer choice. If the answer choice is validated, the method may include activating the first computing device and authenticating the merchant applicant for the merchant financial account.
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 extension fee 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 YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights