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 communication filed on 3/23/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-7 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process. Claims 8-14 recite tangible components, thus falling the one of the four statutory classes; i.e. machine. Claims 15-20 call for non-transitory computer readable-medium, which is a tangible article and thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 1 recites:
generating, immutable entry including an amount of resources of a first type and one or more rules associated with the amount of resources, wherein a first participant that accesses;
querying, for at least one unsettled transaction authorization request associated with the first immutable entry;
in response to the querying, receiving, a transaction authorization request comprising at least a transaction amount of resources of a second type, and wherein a merchant associated with the transaction authorization request is a second participant;
converting, the transaction amount of resources of the second type to the amount of resources of the first type;
validating, the converted transaction amount using the amount of resources of the first type and the one or more rules in the first immutable entry;
transmitting, a transaction approval for the transaction authorization request to the merchant based on the validating;
transmitting, the transaction authorization request to a payment for processing based on the transaction approval; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a second blockchain immutable entry in the blockchain shared ledger, the second blockchain immutable entry including the one or more rules and a change in the amount of resources of the first type.
The limitations of using a debit as an intermediary for transaction approval and authorization requests, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions and falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
• one or more processors (claims 1, 8 and 15);
• a debit network (claims 1, 8 and 15); server (claims 1, 8 and 15);
• blockchains and blockchain shared ledger (claims 1, 8 and 15);
• a non-transitory machine readable medium (claim 15);
The “one or more processors” and the “one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors), the debit network is recited at a higher level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the “generating”, “receiving”, “validating”, “transmitting”, steps.
The additional elements of blockchains and blockchain shared ledger are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “debit network”, “blockchain”, “shared ledger”, “server” alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitation “causes the processor to perform a method for using a debit network”, it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record Brock (10,108,938) permits a first party to pay in any currency, while permitting the second party to be paid in any currency. In this way, the technology provides benefits that remove barriers to transactions that might inhibit international commerce, or commerce with certain types of currency. Brock does not disclose or suggest “generating……. the debit network, a first blockchain immutable entry in a blockchain shared ledger, the first blockchain immutable entry including an amount of resources of a first type and one or more rules associated with the amount of resources, wherein the debit network is a first participant that accesses the blockchain shared ledger; querying…… a blockchain server for at least one unsettled transaction authorization request associated with the first blockchain immutable entry; in response to the querying, receiving……. a transaction authorization request comprising at least a transaction amount of resources of a second type, and wherein a merchant associated with the transaction authorization request is a second participant that accesses the blockchain shared ledger”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because according to Applicant, the claims improve the debit network. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because the claims converts the transaction amount of resources of the second type to the amount of resources of the first type, validates the converted transaction amount using the amount of resources of the first type and the one or more rules in the first immutable entry, transmitting a transaction approval for the authorization request to the merchant based on the validating and transmitting the transaction authorization request to payment for processing based on transaction approval. The limitations are accomplishing a business function of debiting a transaction and under its broadest reasonable interpretations cover commercial or legal interactions, and fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group under prong one of 2A.
The additional elements do not improve the debit network. The various additional computer elements of a debit network, a blockchain (i.e. distributed leger), processors, a blockchain server are used generically to accomplish the business function of debiting a transaction will not render the claims eligible. In this case, there appear to be no technical details of how the debit network, blockchain, processor or server operates beyond their ordinary capacity. Therefore, they are simply generic “apply it” use of debit network, blockchain, processor or server to accomplish this debit transaction and therefore ineligible under prong two of 2A.
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.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights