DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on December 1, 2025.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 13, and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 9-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4, 6-12, and 15-24 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that “[t]he claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity at least because the claims recite activity that falls outside the enumerated sub-groupings [such as] generating a resource transfer that defines conditional events in conjunction with exposure scores for triggering a transfer of resources, where the transfer is dependent upon successful execution of the conditional events, and providing a secure, complete record of events on a block chain for tracking the progress of the resource transfer between users.” Remarks at 12. However, these features are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding step 2A, prong two of the 101 analysis, Applicant argues that “the system permits users to develop sophisticated structures for resource transfers that are typically unidimensional (i.e., the resource is simply transferred) and provide the users with a secure, unmanipulable, record on the blockchain that tracks the progress through the sophisticated structures.” Remarks at 14. Applicant further argues that “[t]he particular solution provided by the independent claims is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome the problems of current peer-to-peer resource transfer methods which lack reliable tools for tracking and confirming delivery of resources for both involved parties leading to the increased potential for exposure and misappropriation.” Id. However, the blockchain and other computer related elements are being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding step 2B of the 101 analysis, Applicant points to McRo (Remarks at 15) and Bascom (Remarks at 16). However, Applicant has not shown that the instant claims are eligible for reasons similar to claims that are the subject of these decisions. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Although individual claim features are known in the art, the independent claims as a whole are not obvious in light of the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c).
Intended Use
Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
The following limitations include intended use limitations:
Claims 1, 12, and 20: based on the exposure score, generate a chain of conditional events comprising one or more conditional events for tracking the resource transfer and a triggering event for triggering a transfer of the resource, where the triggering event is after an occurrence of the one or more conditional events
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, 4, 6-12, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1, 4, 6-11, and 21-24 which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 12 and 15-19, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claim 20, which recites “[a] computer program product…comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and, therefore, is directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1, 4, 6-11, and 21-24 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A system for dynamic peer-to-peer resource transfers based on resource transfer exposure, the system comprising:
a controller configured for generating customized resource transfers, the controller comprising a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon, a communication device connected to a network, and a processing device, wherein the computer-readable program code is configured to cause the processing device during operation to:
initiate a resource transfer for transferring a resource between one or more user devices;
generate an initial block associated with the resource transfer on a blockchain;
calculate an exposure score for the resource transfer based on the resource and the one or more user devices;
based on the exposure score, generate a chain of conditional events comprising one or more conditional events for tracking the resource transfer and a triggering event for triggering a transfer of the resource, where the triggering event is after an occurrence of the one or more conditional events;
receive a resource from a first user device of the one or more user devices for temporary storage in a resource storage of the memory device, wherein reception of the resource is a first conditional event of the one or more conditional events;
generate an additional block on the blockchain associated with execution of the first conditional event;
recalculate, in real-time based on execution of the first conditional event, the exposure score;
generate, based on the recalculated exposure score, an additional conditional event in the chain of conditional events;
determine the additional conditional event has been executed;
generate another additional block on the blockchain associated with the execution of the additional conditional event; and
based on determining successful completion of the chain of conditional events, trigger a transfer of the resource from the resource storage of the memory device to a second user device of the one or more user devices.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein recalculating the exposure score comprises generating additional events in the chain of conditional events prior to the triggering event or moving the triggering event in the chain of conditional events.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable program code is further configured to cause the processing device during operation to calculate exposure scores for each of the conditional events in the chain of conditional events.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the conditional events and triggering event are defined or modified based on at least one of: a type or an amount of a resource to be transferred, the users, and/or user devices participating in the transfer.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein two or more triggering events are required to be executed simultaneously or within a predetermined time period to act as a trigger event for the transfer.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein recalculating the exposure score comprises removing one or more conditional events in the chain of conditional events prior to the triggering event.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein recalculating the exposure score comprises recalculating the exposure score based on how a conditional event is executed.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein recalculating the exposure score comprises recalculating the exposure score based on determined failure to execute one or more of the conditional events.
21. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable program code is further configured to cause the processing device to, after recalculating the exposure score:
determine, if the exposure score is below a predetermined threshold, a second conditional event of the one or more conditional events has been executed;
generate another additional block on the block chain associated with the execution of the second conditional event;
recalculate, in real-time based on execution of the second conditional event, the exposure score;
determine, if the exposure score is below the predetermined threshold, a third conditional event of the one or more conditional events has been executed;
generate another additional block on the block chain associated with the execution of the third conditional event; and
recalculate, in real-time based on execution of the third conditional event, the exposure score.
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the computer-readable program code is further configured to cause the processing device during operation to cancel the resource transfer in response to the exposure score exceeding the predetermined threshold.
23. The system of claim 21, wherein the second conditional event comprises scanning of a tracking label of a package associated with the resource transfer, wherein the third conditional event comprises determining, via GPS, that the second user device is at a physical delivery location associated with the tracking label, and wherein the additional conditional event comprises reception of a signature associated with delivery of the package.
24. The system of claim 23, wherein the additional conditional event is generated due to the recalculated exposure score based on execution of the first conditional event being increased due to an amount of the resource.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to generating conditions for transferring a resource. This type of method of organizing human activity is a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed business process (i.e., initiate a resource transfer, calculate an exposure score, generate a chain of conditional events, recalculate the exposure score, generate an additional conditional event, determine that the additional conditional event has been executed, and trigger a transfer of the resource). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Duncan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0203698 A1. This reference teaches fraud detection.
Andrade, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0240107 A1. This reference teaches transaction monitoring. Specifically, this reference teaches: “The steps and criteria, which are preset inside the smart contract, may include the following chronological events, e.g., as outlined in FIG. 5. Another example would be holding a transaction; checking for fulfillment of various conditions; success or failure in completion of the smart contract (e.g. central server's check of the risk score, approval by the central server); success; and publication to the network and verification, and recordation.” See paragraph 0404.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
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 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 ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM 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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)