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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 1/23/2026.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 2 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 10 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 16 recites a product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 2, 10, and 16 recite a method comprising: processing user information and broker information to generate corresponding digital signatures using a cryptographic key that is known to nodes of a distributed ledger network, wherein the user information and the broker information are compatible with a smart contract and the distributed ledger network; generating a claim state object for processing a claim, wherein generating is based on the user information and the broker information, wherein the claim state object is associated with the user information, the broker information, and the corresponding digital signatures, and wherein the claim state object is usable by the nodes of the distributed ledger network to execute the smart contract for processing the claim; receiving an updated claim state object from a node of the distributed ledger network, wherein the updated claim state object reflects a processing status of the claim and is facilitates execution of the smart contract by nodes of the distributed ledger network; performing a distributed verification of an execution of the smart contract, wherein the distributed verification is performed across a subset of the nodes of the distributed ledger network and wherein each node of the subset of the nodes independently verifies the execution; processing the claim using the updated claim state object, wherein processing is based on results of the execution of the smart contract; facilitating processing of a payment based on a completion of the distributed verification of execution of the smart contract, wherein the payment is associated with the claim; and receiving a result associated with the processing of the payment. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions (sales activities or behaviors), as well as business relations, and managing interactions between people (following instructions). The claims are also a fundamental economic practice, such as insurance. The claims are also mental processes, capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. 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 above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, memory, processors, non-transitory computer-readable medium, distributed ledger network, smart contract, nodes of a distributed ledger, subset of nodes, a node of a distributed ledger. The additional elements of a system, memory, processors, non-transitory computer-readable medium, distributed ledger network, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a distributed ledger network, smart contract, nodes of a distributed ledger, subset of nodes, a node of a distributed ledger are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a system, memory, processors, non-transitory computer-readable medium, distributed ledger network, smart contract, nodes of a distributed ledger, subset of nodes, a node of a distributed ledger) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 3 recites wherein the user information includes user identifying information and user insurance information. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites further comprising: accessing the user information, wherein accessing is based on a proximity of end user equipment associated with a user and a premises of a service provider. ese limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of end user equipment are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites further comprising processing the user information and the broker information into to yield converted information compatible with a smart contract format and the distributed ledger network. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of distributed ledger network are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein at least one node of the distributed ledger network is associated with a service provider for which the claim is being processed. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of distributed ledger network are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein processing the claim further comprises completing a cardless transaction using a financial account of a provider associated with a first network node and at least one of a financial account of an insurance provider associated with a second network node and a financial account of a user who is a party to the claim. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first network node and the second network node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein processing the claim results in a claim status that a complete payment or partial payment for the claim by an entity. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites further comprising accessing the user information and the broker information, wherein accessing is initiated by a triggering condition that includes detection of a user terminal within a facility associated with a first network node at a first time and a determination that the user terminal is no longer present at the facility at a second time that is after the first time. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the user terminal are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first network node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites wherein the user information includes user identifying information and user insurance information. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform additional operations comprising: processing the user information and the broker information into to yield converted information compatible with a smart contract format and the distributed ledger network. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the processor and the distributed ledger network are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein at least one node of the distributed ledger network is associated with a service provider for which the claim is being processed. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of distributed ledger network are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of one node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein processing the claim further comprises completing a cardless transaction using a financial account of a provider associated with a first network node and at least one of a financial account of an insurance provider associated with a second network node and a financial account of a user who is a party to the claim. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the first network node and the second network node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein processing the claim results in a claim status that a complete payment or partial payment for the claim by an entity. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein the user information includes user identifying information and user insurance information. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 16, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 16, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: processing the user information and the broker information into to yield converted information compatible with a smart contract format and the distributed ledger network. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 16, and the additional elements of processors and distributed ledger network are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 16 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 16, and the additional elements of smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 16, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein at least one node of the distributed ledger network is associated with a service provider for which the claim is being processed. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of distributed ledger network are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 16 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 16, and the additional elements of one node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 16, supra.
Claim 20 recites wherein processing the claim further comprises completing a cardless transaction using a financial account of a provider associated with a first network node and at least one of a financial account of an insurance provider associated with a second network node and a financial account of a user who is a party to the claim. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 16, and the additional elements of the first network node and the second network node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 16, supra.
Claim 21 recites wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: accessing the user information and the broker information, wherein accessing is initiated by a triggering condition that includes detection of a user terminal within a facility associated with a first network node at a first time and a determination that the user terminal is no longer present at the facility at a second time that is after the first time. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 16, and the additional elements of the user terminal are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 16 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 16, and the additional elements of the first network node are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 16, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has not filed arguments (1/23/2026) in response to Non-Final Office Action (9/23/2025).
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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693