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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed June 17, 2026 in which claims 7, 8, 11, 15, 18 and 19 are amended. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claims 1-6 have been previously withdrawn. Thus, claims 7-13 and 15-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 7-13 and 15-20 are directed to a method which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 7 recites : receiving, a distributed application on a digital banking and payment platform and via an Application Programming Interface (API), a prepare transfer instruction from a first transaction party to prepare a transfer of funds for a transaction, the prepare transfer instruction comprising payment details including a transaction amount and a transaction identifier; screening, by the distributed application, the prepare transfer instruction; forwarding, by the distributed application, the prepare transfer instruction to an orchestration engine on a non-distributed ledger technology (DLT) banking platform; routing, by the orchestration engine, the prepare transfer instruction to a payment processing system on the non-DLT banking platform; sending, by the orchestration engine, a request to the distributed application to reduce an amount in a blockchain deposit account for the first transaction party and to place a posting hold on the transaction amount in the blockchain deposit account with the transaction identifier, wherein the funds may not be transferred without an execute transfer instruction, wherein the hold expires if the execute transfer instruction is not received within a specified time; receiving, by the distributed application on the digital banking and payment platform and from the first transaction party and via the API, the execute transfer instruction from the first transaction party to transfer funds for a transaction associated with the transaction identifier; executing, by the orchestration engine, a balance update call to the distributed application with a second transaction identifier; identifying, by the orchestration engine, a posting hold identifier using the transaction identifier; submitting, by the distributed application, a blockchain transaction for the execute transfer instruction to a smart contract; and processing, by the smart contract, the blockchain transaction by updating the posting hold to zero, decreasing a balance in a first transaction party account by the transaction amount, and increasing a balance in a second transaction party account by the transaction amount. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interaction. Preparing a transfer of funds for a transaction and then sending a request to place a posting hold on the transaction amount is a commercial or legal interaction. The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 7 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a distributed application, a digital banking and payment platform, an Application Programming Interface (API), an orchestration engine, a non-distributed ledger technology (DLT) banking platform, the blockchain and a smart contract on a distributed ledger result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The limitations, “forwarding, by the distributed application, the prepare transfer instruction to an orchestration engine on a non-distributed ledger technology (DLT) banking platform” and “routing, by the orchestration engine, the prepare transfer instruction to a payment processing system on the non-DLT banking platform” amount to generic computer implementation. The specification describes the additional elements of a distributed application, a digital banking and payment platform, an Application Programming Interface (API), an orchestration engine, a non-distributed ledger technology (DLT) banking platform, the blockchain and a smart contract on a distributed ledger to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, [0029], [0046], [0051-0052]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 8-13 and 15-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 13 and 20 recite a new additional element that is not present in independent claim 7 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 13 and 20 recite the additional element of a digital asset platform. A digital asset platform, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 7-13 and 15-20 are ineligible.
No Prior Art Rejections
3. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 7-13 and 15-20. While some individual features of claims 7-13 and 15-20 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 7-13 and 15-20. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
1) Barnes (US 2021/0192517 A1) – This invention relates generally to a system for processing transaction submissions over a distributed ledger network. The system includes an exchange platform to generate settlement instructions comprising a set of net positions held by transaction participants with respect to transaction submissions submitted to the exchange platform by the transaction participants for exchange of assets via an off-ledger settlement entity. The system further includes a settlement platform to host a private distributed ledger network to store a record of positions held by the transaction participants with respect to the assets, update the record of positions according to the settlement instructions, and transmit an update of the record of positions to the off - ledger settlement entity .
2) Bellamy (US 11,615,413 B2) - This invention relates generally to distributed ledger cores. A method for interacting with a distributed ledger core may include: (1) a distributed banking ledger in a blockchain-based distributed ledger system receiving a transaction request for a transaction from a client system; (2) a smart contract creating a pending transaction; (3) the smart contract sending a posting request for the pending transaction to a ledger interoperability service; (4) the posting generation service generating accounting movements for the transaction; (5) the posting execution service posting the accounting movements and providing posting details to the ledger interoperability service; (6) validating the posting details with a data services module; (7) the smart contract receiving a posting validation complete notification from the posting execution service via the ledger interoperability service; (8) the smart contract settling the transaction on the distributed banking ledger by writing the transaction as a new block to the distributed banking ledger.
3) Harper (US 2005/0197945 A1) – This invention relates generally to making purchases at a merchant point-of-sale (POS) device using a mobile device. Transaction information may be communicated from the POS device to the mobile device and an authorization from the purchaser to proceed with the transaction returned to the POS device from the mobile device. After authorization, the POS device may communicate the transaction information together with an identifier of the mobile device to a financial institution to process payment. The financial institution may confirm the transaction with the purchaser at the mobile device using the identifier of the mobile device. Upon receiving a confirmation response from the mobile device, the financial institution may then transfer funds from a purchaser account to a merchant account.
Response to Arguments
4. Claim objections of claim 7 is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
5. Applicant's arguments filed dated 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
6. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 8-12), Applicant argues that, “the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of a distributed application, a digital banking and payment platform, an Application Programming Interface (API), an orchestration engine, a non-distributed ledger technology (DLT) banking platform, the blockchain and a smart contract on a distributed ledger, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, [0029], [0046], [0051-0052]). The limitations, “forwarding, by the distributed application, the prepare transfer instruction to an orchestration engine on a non-distributed ledger technology (DLT) banking platform” and “routing, by the orchestration engine, the prepare transfer instruction to a payment processing system on the non-DLT banking platform” amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
7. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 extension lee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
August 25, 2026 /BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights