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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending in this 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 35 and product claim 28. Claim 21 recites the limitations of labeling and storing transaction information on an interconnecting network system by classifying the account type and (asset) movement as vectors.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Identifying network transactions for transferring assets; determining transaction attributes for a network transaction; (transaction attributes indicating a source account + target account); an account type associated with the network transaction, a transaction direction, and a movement trigger; determining a ledger specification; (“ledger specification”= code for how to executing transaction between source and target accounts); generating a transaction vector; (“transaction vector”= attributes + ledger specification); (“transaction vector”= attributes compatible across the network); storing transaction vector; and determining asset movement defined by the ledger specification of the transaction vector, – specifically, the claim recites: “identifying a plurality of network transactions for transferring assets… across network transactions; determining… transaction attributes for a network transaction of the plurality of network transactions, the transaction attributes indicating a source account and a target account, an account type for a user account associated with the network transaction, a transaction direction, and a movement trigger classification indicating a reason for the network transaction; determining… a ledger specification defining computer code for executing the network transaction between the source account and the target account using a ledger network component within the universal network component pipeline; generating… a transaction vector defining the network transaction as executable by combining the transaction attributes and the ledger specification, the transaction vector comprising a universal set of transaction attributes compatible across the network components of the universal network component pipeline; storing… the transaction vector within a transaction vector repository; and determining… asset movement defined by the ledger specification of the transaction vector”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “at least one processor”, “universal network component pipeline”, “transaction vector repository”, “a creator network component”, “a program configurator component”, “a ledger network component”, “one or more hardware processing devices”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, in claim 35; the additional technical element of “network components”, “a processor associated with a creator network component”, and “a processor associated with a program configurator component” in claim 21; and the additional technical element of “non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 28, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 21 and 28 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system, a processor associated with a creator network component, a processor associated with a program configurator component, one or more hardware processing devices, and at least one processor; a communication device such as universal network component pipeline; a storage unit such as transaction vector repository and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and software module and algorithm such as a creator network component, a program configurator component, a ledger network component, and network components.
The examiner notes again that system claim 35 discloses “a creator network component”, “a program configurator component”, and “a ledger network component”. Specification paragraph 76 discloses “creator network component” as a “network component”. Specification paragraph 36 further discloses “network component” as a “computer application or subsystem operated by one or more processors.” Thus, as used, “component” is an application/software module.
The examiner also notes again that while the method claim 21 seems to disclose two processors – i.e., “a processor associated with a creator network component” and “a processor associated with a program configurator component”. The other claims and the specification strongly suggest otherwise. First, these two processors – “a processor associated with a creator network component” and “a processor associated with a program configurator component” – are not positively recited in the system claim 35. In fact, the system claim does not make any hint of distinction to lend credibility to interpret the claims as having 2 processors. System claim 35 only states that there are “at least one processor operating”, meaning there might be just one processor – like a “generic computer”. Secondly, in method claim 21, the only distinction is the use of the article “a” in “a processor associated with a creator network component” and “a processor associated with a program configurator component”, suggesting that there are two processors. However, specification paragraph 76 talks about “creator network component” as a “network component”. And paragraph 36 talks about “network component” as a “computer application or subsystem operated by one or more processors.” Thus, as used, “component” is an application/software. This also suggests strongly that it is the same processor that is associated with different software at different stages of the process, i.e. “a processor associated with a creator network component” and “a processor associated with a program configurator component”. If this is not correct, the examiner invites the applicant to make clear that there are two distinct and separate processors in this system. As the examiner stated in the 9/29/25 interview, “there was also a brief discussion regarding amended/proposed claims that could potentially change the scope of the claim, such as adding (positively reciting) to all the independent claims,
(1) the first, second, third, and fourth processors;
(2) what first, second, third, and fourth processors do, individually in the claimed process; and
(explain in the reply/arguments); and
(3) how having these four processors improves existing art (pointing out to where such assertion is supported by the specification).
The examiner notes that the various technical elements (existing and added) should be part of a single functioning system being claimed – i.e., together, they should (1) be a singular/stand-alone technical system that is carrying out the abstract idea, (2) not be just another way of describing a “generic computer” or part of a “generic computer”, AND (3) not be elements belonging to disparate entities/parties/systems claimed and not claimed. The goal is to show a resemblance of a computer arrangement/architecture. (emphasis added)”
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 21, 28, and 35 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 21, 28, and 35 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 21, 28, and 35 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 22 discloses the limitation of identifying the plurality of network transactions comprises defining a plurality of valid transaction types for execution by an inter-network facilitation system, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “an inter-network facilitation system” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 discloses the limitation of determining the transaction attributes for the network transaction comprises defining an account type and a movement trigger classification indicating a reason for the network transaction, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 24 discloses the limitation of receiving a transaction request for transferring assets among digital accounts; verifying, based on a set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request, that the transaction request corresponds to the transaction vector defining the network transaction within the transaction vector repository; and determining computer code for executing the transaction request according to the ledger specification, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the transaction vector repository” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25 discloses the limitation of extracting the set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request utilizing a transaction network component within the universal network component pipeline; and verifying that the transaction request corresponds to the transaction vector utilizing a journal network component within the universal network component pipeline, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a transaction network component” and “a journal network component” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 26 discloses the limitation of determining the computer code for executing the transaction request comprises combining the set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request with the ledger specification according to the transaction vector, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 27 discloses the limitation of receiving a transaction request for transferring assets among digital accounts; comparing a set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request with transaction attributes of transaction vectors stored within the transaction vector repository for the plurality of network transactions; and rejecting the transaction request based on determining that the set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request do not correspond to a transaction vector of the transaction vectors stored within the transaction vector repository for the plurality of network transactions, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the transaction vector repository” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 29 discloses the limitation of comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to identify the plurality of network transactions by defining a plurality of valid transaction types for execution by an inter-network facilitation system, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the computer system”, and “an inter-network facilitation system”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 30 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to determine the transaction attributes for the network transaction by defining an account type and a movement trigger classification indicating a reason for the network transaction, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor” and “the computer system” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 31 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to: receive a transaction request for transferring assets among digital accounts; verify, based on a set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request, that the transaction request corresponds to the transaction vector defining the network transaction within the transaction vector repository; and determine computer code for executing the transaction request according to the ledger specification , which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the computer system”, and “the transaction vector repository”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 32 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to: extract the set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request utilizing a transaction network component within the universal network component pipeline; and verify that the transaction request corresponds to the transaction vector utilizing a journal network component within the universal network component pipeline, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the computer system”, “transaction network component”, and “a journal network component”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 33 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to determine the computer code for executing the transaction request by combining the set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request with the ledger specification according to the transaction vector, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor” and “the computer system” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 34 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to: receive a transaction request for transferring assets among digital accounts; compare a set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request with transaction attributes of transaction vectors stored within the transaction vector repository for the plurality of network transactions; and reject the transaction request based on determining that the set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request do not correspond to a transaction vector of the transaction vectors stored within the transaction vector repository for the plurality of network transactions, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the computer system”, and “transaction vector repository”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 36 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to identify the plurality of network transactions by defining a plurality of valid transaction types for execution by an inter-network facilitation system, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the system”, and “an inter-network facilitation system”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 37 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine the transaction attributes for the network transaction by defining an account type and a movement trigger classification indicating a reason for the network transaction, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor” and “the system” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 38 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive a transaction request for transferring assets among digital accounts; verify, based on a set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request, that the transaction request corresponds to the transaction vector defining the network transaction within the transaction vector repository; and determine computer code for executing the transaction request according to the ledger specification, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the system” and “the transaction vector repository”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 39 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: extract the set of transaction attributes associated with a transaction request utilizing a transaction network component within the universal network component pipeline; and verify that the transaction request corresponds to the transaction vector utilizing a journal network component within the universal network component pipeline, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the system”, “a transaction network component”, “the universal network component pipeline”, and “a journal network component”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 40 discloses the limitation of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive a transaction request for transferring assets among digital accounts; compare a set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request with transaction attributes of transaction vectors stored within the transaction vector repository for the plurality of network transactions; and reject the transaction request based on determining that the set of transaction attributes associated with the transaction request do not correspond to a transaction vector of the transaction vectors stored within the transaction vector repository for the plurality of network transactions, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “at least one processor”, “the system” and “transaction vector repository”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 21-40 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea… Neither claim 21 nor any of the dependent claims recite or involve mitigating risk,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to processing and storing account type associated with transactions. See, e.g., specification paragraph 7 “ Such key transaction attributes may include, for instance, an account type for a user account associated with the network transaction or a movement trigger classification indicating a reason for the network transaction (emphasis examiner’s).” Accurate ledgering of account information for transactions is an important risk mitigation function.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Instead, claim 21 recites a specific data processing architecture and a novel data construct. The claim requires generating a "transaction vector" that defines a network transaction as executable by combining "transaction attributes" and a "ledger specification defining computer code" for execution across a "universal network component pipeline",”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a business procedure/algorithm used in the process of ledgering. This is abstract by nature.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The Claims Integrate the Alleged Exception into a Practical Application… claim 21, the transaction vector is generated by "combining the transaction attributes and the ledger specification," where the ledger specification defines "computer code for executing the network transaction" and the transaction vector comprises "a universal set of transaction attributes compatible across the network components of the universal network component pipeline." This novel logical data structure allows the system to process requests using a consistent, "one-size-fits-all" set of network components, thereby eliminating the need to redefine the processing pipeline for each request and significantly reducing processing power overhead,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, "combining the transaction attributes and the ledger specification” is a business procedure/algorithm used in the process of ledgering. This is abstract by nature.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Ex Parte Desjardins… By reducing the specific claimed mechanism of combining universal attributes with a ledger specification defining computer code to a mere "business decision," the Office Action improperly ignores the specific claim limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins is solving “catastrophic forgetting problem in machine learning” Thus, it’s improving machine learning technology. The claimed invention, however, are directed more towards use of a procedure/algorithm used in the process of ledgering. It does not improve any technology.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The Claims Recite Significantly More… Claim 21 requires a highly specific, distributed network architecture operating as a "universal network component pipeline." This ordered combination includes a "creator network component" that determines the ledger specification computer code and generates the transaction vector by "determining... This specific architecture is not a generic computer simply performing an abstract idea. Instead, it is an unconventional arrangement of specialized network components that solves an "Internet-centric problem" of pipeline incompatibility and computational inefficiency… this specific ordered combination goes well beyond merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer and provides significantly more than any alleged judicial exception,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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 on 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights