DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to response and amendment filed on 3/16/26. Claim is amended. Claims 1-9 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
pp. 12-13, prong one, step 2A,
The Applicant essentially argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea in mental processes grouping. That is correct, the claims do not recite an abstract idea in mental processes grouping. However, as the Examiner argued in the previous office action as well as in the current office action that the claims recite the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction within certain methods of organizing human activity because the claim limitations include at least “receiving, from the one or more downstream entities, an authorization of the transaction” that clearly recite the abstract idea.
pp. 13-14, prong two, step 2A,
The Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible regardless of whether they recite well known, routine or conventional limitations because the combination recited in the claims recite hardware physically interacting with vehicles. As recited in the previous and current rejection, the claims recite no hardware elements that are specific to a vehicle or vehicle components. Instead, the recited hardware elements are directed to computer and/or server components that merely “apply it” when performing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1-2). As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
pp. 14-15, step 2B,
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 into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction.
p. 12
Applicant also mentions submission of 1.132 affidavit in support of technical improvement recited in the claims. As of the date of this action, there is no 1.132 affidavit submitted to the record.
As such, the rejection is maintained and an updated rejection addressing the amended claims is provided below.
102/103: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the previously recited reference in the previous rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The amended claims are disclosed by US 20190228388 A1 (Hu) and US 20220222648 A1 (Frick).
As such, the rejection is maintained and an updated rejection addressing the amended claims is provided below.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claims 1-9). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of authorizing a transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A system comprising:
a plurality of computing nodes, the plurality of computing nodes coupled and communicating within a peer-to-peer network in a point-to-point manner via a distributed routing network or a centralized routing platform;
one or more processors configured to coordinate the plurality of computing nodes;
memory coupled to the one or more processors, and storing instructions for execution by at least some of the one or more processors,
wherein the one or more processors operate to coordinate the plurality of computing nodes perform:
receiving, via a communications subsystem, from one or more upstream computing nodes corresponding to one or more upstream entities, a record of a transaction between the one or more upstream entities or between transacting entities associated with the one or more upstream entities;
recording, within the distributed routing network associated with the computing node, a log entry comprising the transaction;
routing, in a point-to-point manner, the log entry of the transaction to the one or more downstream entities;
receiving, from the one or more downstream entities, an authorization of the transaction;
routing, to the one or more upstream entities, the authorization of the transaction;
updating the record of the transaction at the distributed routing network by appending the authorization of the transaction and to provide a guarantee of validity of the transaction; and
based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node exceeding a corresponding processing and storage threshold, dynamically activating one or more additional computing nodes; and
based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node being less than a corresponding processing and storage threshold, dynamically deactivating one or more computing nodes.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A system comprising”, “a plurality of computing nodes, the plurality of computing nodes coupled and communicating within a peer-to-peer network in a point-to-point manner via a distributed routing network or a centralized routing platform”, “one or more processors configured to coordinate the plurality of computing nodes” and “memory coupled to the one or more processors, and storing instructions for execution by at least some of the one or more processors”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“wherein the one or more processors operate to coordinate the plurality of computing nodes perform”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “processor(s)” operate to coordinate the “computing nodes to perform”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“[receiving], via a communications subsystem, from one or more upstream computing nodes […]”. “communications subsystem” and “one or more upstream computing nodes” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“recording, within the distributed routing network associated with the computing node, [a log entry …]”. Recording information to distributed storage does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“routing, in a point-to-point manner, [the log entry …]”. Direct (peer to peer) communication of information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node exceeding a corresponding processing and storage threshold, dynamically activating one or more additional computing nodes” and “based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node being less than a corresponding processing and storage threshold, dynamically deactivating one or more computing nodes”. Load balancing does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, load balancing does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the load is balanced, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
(Step 2B) 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 integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction.
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims, claim 5 recites “wherein the plurality of computing nodes comprise first computing nodes and the peer-to-peer network comprises a first peer-to-peer network; and the system further comprises second computing nodes coupled to and communicating within a second peer-to-peer network, the first peer-to-peer network being dedicated to a first category of transacting entities and the second peer-to-peer network being dedicated to a second category of transacting entities, the first category and the second category being distinguished based on a size, a type, or a region of the transacting entities”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“wherein the plurality of computing nodes comprise first computing nodes and the peer-to-peer network comprises a first peer-to-peer network; and the system further comprises second computing nodes coupled to and communicating within a second peer-to-peer network, the first peer-to-peer network […] and the second peer-to-peer network […]”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction.
Claim 7 recites additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the plurality of computing nodes are hosted by a virtual computing machine on a physical server, the virtual computing machine comprising: one or more simulated central processing units (CPUs) or simulated graphical processing units (GPUs) accessible by the plurality of computing nodes; and a hypervisor that maps the simulated CPUs or simulated GPUs onto the physical server”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction.
Claim 8 recites additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the plurality of computing nodes comprise first computing nodes; the virtual computing machine comprises a first virtual computing machine; and the system further comprises second computing nodes hosted by a second virtual computing machine on the physical server”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the computing node is configured to transmit and receive communications directly to and from the one or more upstream entities and the one or more downstream entities in a point-to-point manner, the transacting entities comprise a payer and a merchant, the one or more upstream entities being associated with a device, a digital application, or a digital wallet of the merchant or the payer, the transaction comprises a credit or a debit transaction using a transaction instrument; and the one or more downstream entities are associated with a digital banking core or an issuer or processing system of the transaction instrument”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the computing node is configured to transmit and receive communications directly […] in a point-to-point manner, […]” and “a device, a digital application, or a digital wallet”. Direct (or peer based) communication does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “a device, a digital application, or a digital wallet” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)
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 integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction.
Continuing the analysis of dependent claims 25, 26 and 28, the claims recite additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190228388 A1 (Hu) in view of US 20220222648 A1 (Frick).
As to claim 1,
Hu teaches,
A system (FIG. 17, para. 173 “system”) comprising:
a plurality of computing nodes (para. 32 “a blockchain”), the plurality of computing nodes coupled and communicating within a peer-to-peer network (para. 39 “The blockchain uses a distributed ledger technology, and all nodes store full ledger information”) in a point-to-point manner via a distributed routing network or a centralized routing platform (para. 39 “the “blockchain ledger”);
one or more processors (FIG. 14, item 1402, para. 141 “a processor”) configured to coordinate the plurality of computing nodes (para. 39 “nodes”);
memory coupled to the one or more processors (FIG. 14, item 1408, para. 141 “a memory”), and storing instructions for execution by at least some of the one or more processors (FIG. 14, item 1408, para. 141 “The processor 1402 reads a corresponding computer program from the nonvolatile memory 1410 and stores the computer program in the memory 1408 for running”),
wherein the one or more processors operate (para. 141) to coordinate the plurality of computing nodes perform (para. 39):
receiving, via a communications subsystem, from one or more upstream computing nodes corresponding to one or more upstream entities, a record of a transaction between the one or more upstream entities or between transacting entities associated with the one or more upstream entities (FIG. 17, item 1702, para. 174 “a request for fund flow of a specified amount between a payer and a payee is received by a first member of a blockchain”);
recording, within the distributed routing network associated with the computing node, a log entry comprising the transaction (FIG. 3, item 306, para. 102 “Wallet 1 can push, to Bank 1 and Bank 2, the documents to be checked provided by user 1, to implement the compliance check based on the documents to be checked, for example, the KYC check or the AML check”);
routing, in a point-to-point manner, the log entry of the transaction to the one or more downstream entities (FIG. 3, item 306, para. 102-104 “any member in the remittance route can return a corresponding check result to Wallet 1 after completing the compliance check request, and the check result can include a digital digest corresponding to detailed data for implementing the compliance check by the member”);
receiving, from the one or more downstream entities, an authorization of the transaction (FIG. 3, item 307, para. 105 “storage as compliance evidence”, para. 63 “authorize the contract so that these members can implement the fund flow service based on the contract”);
routing, to the one or more upstream entities, the authorization of the transaction (FIG. 17, items 1704, 1706, para. 175 “a fund flow route between the first member and a second member corresponding to the payee in the blockchain is determined by the first member”, para. 176 “a fund flow contract operation is initiated by the first member”);
updating the record of the transaction at the distributed routing network by appending the authorization of the transaction and to provide a guarantee of validity of the transaction (FIG. 17, item 1708, para. 177 “ in response to initiating the fund flow contract operation, the blockchain balances of all the members of the fund flow route registered in the blockchain ledger are uniformly changed, where the second member pays funds of the specified amount to the payee”).
Hu does not explicitly teach,
based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node exceeding a corresponding processing and storage threshold, dynamically activating one or more additional computing nodes;
based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node being less than a corresponding processing and storage threshold, dynamically deactivating one or more computing nodes.
however, Frick teaches,
based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node exceeding a corresponding processing and storage threshold (para. 78 “the first user interface 402 notifies and/or informs the user that there is an error with trying to complete a resource transaction associated with the resource patch, and queries the user as to whether the user desires to complete the attempted resource transaction”, para. 51 “the resource patch 202 can store resources”), dynamically activating one or more additional computing nodes (FIG. 2, item 202, para. 61 “The first networked device 104 can be configured to register and/or activate the resource patch 202”);
based on an instantaneous processing and storage load on a computing node being less than a corresponding processing and storage threshold, dynamically deactivating one or more computing nodes (para. 76 “deactivate the temporary resource patch so that any resources associated with the temporary resource patch cannot be used”, para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transaction authorization routing of Hu with computing resource allocation of Frick because computing resource allocation improves transaction authorization routing by dynamically adjusting available resources based on computing demand.
As to claim 2,
Hu also teaches,
in response to receiving the authorization, initiating a fiat settlement from a payer bank account to a merchant bank account via back end settlement channels (para. 77).
As to claim 3,
Hu also teaches,
wherein the peer-to-peer network and the plurality of computing nodes are configured to process transactions belonging to a particular category of transacting entities, the particular category being defined based on a size, a type, or a region of the transacting entities (para. 75);
wherein the peer-to-peer network is dedicated to a particular transacting entity, the peer- to-peer network and the plurality of computing nodes being configured to process transactions belonging to the particular transacting entity (FIG. 2, para. 75-76).
As to claim 4,
Hu also teaches,
wherein the record of the transaction comprises an indicia that specifies a transacting category of a particular transacting entity involved in the transaction (para. 125);
the one or more processors operate to configure the computing node to perform (para. 39):
verifying that the transacting category matches the particular category (para. 126);
the receiving of the record of the transaction is in response to verifying that the transacting category matches the particular category (para. 127).
As to claim 5,
Hu also teaches,
wherein the plurality of computing nodes comprise first computing nodes and the peer-to-peer network comprises a first peer-to-peer network (para. 39); and the system further comprises second computing nodes coupled to and communicating within a second peer-to-peer network (para. 39), the first peer-to-peer network being dedicated to a first category of transacting entities (FIG. 2, para. 75) and the second peer-to-peer network being dedicated to a second category of transacting entities (FIG. 2, para. 75), the first category and the second category being distinguished based on a size, a type, or a region of the transacting entities (FIG. 2, para. 75).
As to claim 6,
Hu also teaches,
wherein each of the computing nodes are hosted by a different party selected from parties, the parties comprising a card network, an issuer, a bank, a credit union, and a merchant (para. 39, para. 76).
As to claim 7,
Hu also teaches,
wherein the plurality of computing nodes are hosted by a virtual computing machine on a physical server, the virtual computing machine comprising (para. 179):
one or more simulated central processing units (CPUs) or simulated graphical processing units (GPUs) accessible by the plurality of computing nodes (para. 39, 179);
a hypervisor that maps the simulated CPUs or simulated GPUs onto the physical server (para. 179).
As to claim 8,
Hu also teaches,
wherein the plurality of computing nodes comprise first computing nodes; the virtual computing machine comprises a first virtual computing machine; and the system further comprises second computing nodes hosted by a second virtual computing machine on the physical server (para. 179).
As to claim 9,
Hu also teaches,
wherein the computing node is configured to transmit and receive communications directly to and from the one or more upstream entities and the one or more downstream entities in a point-to-point manner, the transacting entities comprise a payer and a merchant, the one or more upstream entities being associated with a device, a digital application, or a digital wallet of the merchant or the payer, the transaction comprises a credit or a debit transaction using a transaction instrument; and the one or more downstream entities are associated with a digital banking core or an issuer or processing system of the transaction instrument (para. 72, 76).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights