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 .
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the amendment received on 01/14/2026.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 12 and 13 were amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 were examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal part of the statutory term of any patent granted on the instant Application in view of Patent No. US 11,386,415 B2 was approved on 01/28/2026, therefore, the Double Patenting rejections were withdrawn.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claims 1, 6 and 11 recite “wherein the receipt comprises a cryptographically signed message with pre-agreed contents that do not indicate the state of a transfer, and wherein the pre-agreed contents are pre-agreed upon by the first computing device and the system of the specified party”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05.
In the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a method, claims 6-10 are directed to a system, and claims 11-15 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Specifically, the language of the claims that recite an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
a. “receiving an instruction at a first computing device to perform a transfer of a first quantity of a first resource type from a first resource pool to a second resource pool, wherein the first resource pool comprises a first register and the second resource pool comprises a second register”;b. “placing, by the first computing device, a hold on a second quantity of the first resource type in the first resource pool to create a held second quantity of the first resource type, wherein a condition of the hold is a receiving of a receipt from a system of a specified party”;c. “receiving, at the first computing device from a second computing device, a message that fulfills the condition of the hold, wherein the message that fulfills the condition of the hold is the receipt from the system of the specified party, wherein the receipt comprises a cryptographically signed message with pre-agreed contents that do not indicate the state of a transfer, and wherein the pre-agreed contents are pre-agreed upon by the first computing device and the system of the specified party”;d. “verifying, by the first computing device, the receipt from the system of the specified party using a cryptographic public key of the system of the specified party to determine that the receipt from the system of the specified party comprises a cryptographic signature created with a cryptographic private key of the system of the specified party”;e. “responsive to receiving the message from the second computing device that fulfills the condition on the hold and verifying the receipt from the system of the specified party successfully, releasing by the first computing device the hold on the held second quantity of the first resource type, decrementing by the first computing device the first register that is in the first resource pool and is associated with the first resource type by the first quantity and incrementing by the first computing device the second register that is in the second resource pool and is associated with the first resource type by the first quantity.”
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite distributing/reallocating resources, which is an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo two-part test (see MPEP 2106.04). The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the fundamental economic practice of escrowing, placing holds and distributing/reallocating resources. In addition, the claims are also grouped within mathematical concepts because the steps recited describe cryptographically verifying messages and distributing quantities between pools according to a formula, which represents a mathematical calculation. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element(s) of the claims include: first, second computing devices, a storage, a processor, one or more computers and one or more storage devices, cryptographic signature verification. Specifically, with respect to using the first computing device, a storage, a processor, one or more computers and one or more storage devices to perform the recited steps/functions, these additional elements performs the steps or functions such as: “receiving… instruction…”, “placing… hold…”, “receiving… message…”, “verifying… receipt…”, “releasing the hold… decrementing… register… and incrementing… register…”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they require no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. The claims further recite the additional elements: second computing device, cryptographic signature verification. However, these elements merely serve to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, the first computing device, a storage, a processor, one or more computers and one or more storage devices perform the steps/functions of “receiving… instruction…”, “placing… hold…”, “receiving… message…”, “verifying… receipt…”, “releasing the hold… decrementing… register… and incrementing… register…”, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of distributing/reallocating resources. With respect to the remaining additional element of a second computing device, and a cryptographic signature verification, these additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of distributing/reallocating resources. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 11-15 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
f) wherein the hold placed by the processor is responsive to the receipt from the system of the specified party that… (claims 7 and 12) / wherein the specified party is either a receiving party in a transfer chain, an intermediate party delegated responsibility by the receiving party, a party that operates a resource tracking system and is delegated responsibility by the receiving party, or a third party delegated responsibility by the receiving party. g) further comprising verifying the receipt comprises applying a one-way function on the cryptographically signed message including the pre-agreed contents before releasing the hold on the second quantity of the first resource type. h) wherein the receipt is signed by a private cryptographic key of the specified party. i) further comprising, after placing the hold, sending a prepared transfer receipt indicating that the hold has been placed.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e. first, second computing devices, a storage, a processor, one or more computers and one or more storage devices, cryptographic signature verification), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 2, 7 and 12, the claims recite item f) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the hold “is” (claims 7 and 12) and what a party "is" (i.e. description of a party). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 3, 8 and 13, the claims recite item g) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the receipt comprises (i.e. pre-agreed contents). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 4, 9 and 14, the claims recite item h) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the receipt is/comprises (i.e. "is signed", comprises a signature). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis.
Therefore, the additional language f)-h) of dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, and 12-14 do not alter the analysis provided with respect to independent claims 1, 6 and 11. In other words, the claims do not introduce additional elements that would alter the analysis with respect to Steps 2A or 2B above in any meaningful way. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 5, 10 and 15, the claims recite item i) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of sending a receipt. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of distributing/reallocating resources identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 6 and 11. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner notes that sending a receipt is considered a part of the abstract idea of distributing/reallocating resources. Therefore, while the additional language i) of dependent claims 5, 10, 15 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claims 1, 6 and 11, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
Prior Art Analysis
The prior art of record does not appear to reasonably disclose the subject matter of independent claims 1, 6 and 11. Therefore Claims 1, 6 and 11 appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Examiner notes that further search and consideration will be required upon presentation of the rewritten claims. Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14. Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 would also be allowable upon allowance of claim X, due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 7, filed on 01/14/2026), with respect to the objection of claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended language. Therefore, the objection was withdrawn.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 8 and 9, filed on 01/14/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant asserts “The Office Action… incorrectly asserts the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.“ Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the analysis, the additional elements identified represent either elements recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, in addition to elements which merely serve to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Applicant does not appear to indicate any other additional element. The additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore they do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least this reason (non-eligibility under step 2A, prong two), the claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 101, as further detailed above.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 9, filed on 01/14/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 7, 13 and 13 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered. Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive in view of the submitted amendments, therefore the rejections were withdrawn.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 9-11, filed on 01/14/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 8-15 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered . Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive; therefore the rejections were withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698