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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 05/29/2026.
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.
All claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 9 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
A method for preventing geographically unauthorized blockchain transactions, comprising:
onboarding, by a processor of a processing server, a source participant and a destination participant by assigning a source geographic key to the source participant based on a verified geographic location of the source participant and assigning a destination geographic key to the destination participant based on a verified geographic location of the destination participant;
receiving, by a receiver of a processing server, transaction data for a proposed blockchain transaction from an external computing system, the transaction data including at least a source address and a destination address;
identifying, by a processor of the processing server, a source geographic key associated with a first geographic location based on at least the source address and a destination geographic key associated with a second geographic location based on at least the destination address;
determining, by the processor of the processing server, if the source geographic key is equivalent to the destination geographic key;
if the processor determines that the source geographic key is equivalent to the destination geographic key, initiating, by the processor of the processing server, a new blockchain transaction on a first blockchain associated with the source geographic key based on at least the transaction data;
if the processor determines that the source geographic key is not equivalent to the destination geographic key, executing, by the processor of the processing server, a smart contract using at least the source geographic key and the destination geographic key as input, wherein the smart contract outputs a validation for the proposed blockchain transaction; based on one or more sanctions or regulations restricting transactions between the first geographic location and the second geographic location;
if the validation for the proposed blockchain transaction is a negative validation, transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, a decline message for the proposed blockchain transaction to the external computing system; and
if the validation for the proposed blockchain transaction is a positive validation, initiating, by the processor of the processing server, a first blockchain transaction on the first blockchain associated with the source geographic key based on at least the transaction data, and initiating, by the processor of the processing server, a second blockchain transaction on a second blockchain associated with the destination geographic key based on at least the transaction data, wherein the first blockchain and the second blockchain are separate blockchains each respectively associated with one of the first geographic location and the second geographic location.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “initiating a first and second blockchain transaction” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “by the processor of the processing server,” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (U.S. Patent Pub US 20240220974) in view of Kanza (U.S. Patent Pub 2020/0014529) in view of Muir (U.S. Patent Pub 2024/0185228)
Re claim 1 & 9: Wright discloses:
A method for preventing geographically unauthorized blockchain transactions, comprising:
onboarding, by a processor of a processing server, a source participant and a destination participant by assigning a source geographic key to the source participant based on a verified geographic location of the source participant and assigning a destination geographic key to the destination participant based on a verified geographic location of the destination participant. (see Wright Figure 8 item 300-360 + Fig 10 item 310-360 + Fig 1 item “interested party” item 200 + Fig 7 item 3, 13 Para 0046-0067 + 0138 + 0014 + 0149 + 0326 + Claims 2-4)
receiving, by a receiver of a processing server, transaction data for a proposed blockchain transaction from an external computing system, the transaction data including at least a source address and a destination address; (see Wright Figure 8 item 300-360 + Fig 10 item 310-360 + Fig 1 item “interested party” item 200 + Fig 7 item 3, 13 Para 0046-0067 + 0138 + 0014 + 0149 + 0326 + Claims 2-4)
identifying, by a processor of the processing server, a source geographic key associated with a first geographic location based on at least the source address and a destination geographic key associated with a second geographic location based on at least the destination address; (see Wright Figure 8 item 30-380, 400-440 + Fig 10 item 320-450 + Fig 1 item “interested party” item 200 + “Counter party” + Fig 7 item 7, 27, 17 Para 0172+ Claims 2-4)
determining, by the processor of the processing server, if the source geographic key is equivalent to the destination geographic key; (see Wright Figure 8 item 30-380, 400-440 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item “interested party” item 200 + “Counter party” + Fig 7 item 7, 27, 17 Para 0172+ Claims 2-4)
if the processor determines that the source geographic key is equivalent to the destination geographic key, initiating, by the processor of the processing server, a new blockchain transaction on a first blockchain associated with the source geographic key based on at least the transaction data; (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 Fig 1 item 100 + Fig 7 item 13, 5)
if the processor determines that the source geographic key is not equivalent to the destination geographic key, executing, by the processor of the processing server, a smart contract using at least the source geographic key and the destination geographic key as input, wherein the smart contract outputs a validation for the proposed blockchain transaction; based on one or more sanctions or regulations restricting transactions between the first geographic location and the second geographic location. (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 100 + Fig 7 item 13, 5 + para 0014 + 0149 + 0326)
if the validation for the proposed blockchain transaction is a negative validation, transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, a decline message for the proposed blockchain transaction to the external computing system; and (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 13, 15, 17 + Fig 7 item 7, 27, 17, 15 + para 0222-0223, 0277. 0291)
if the validation for the proposed blockchain transaction is a positive validation, initiating, by the processor of the processing server, a first blockchain transaction on the first blockchain associated with the source geographic key based on at least the transaction data, and initiating, by the processor of the processing server, a second blockchain transaction on a second blockchain associated with the destination geographic key based on at least the transaction data, data, wherein the first blockchain and the second blockchain are separate blockchains each respectively associated with one of the first geographic location and the second geographic location. (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 13, 15, 17 + Fig 7 item 7, 27, 17, 15 + para 0222-0223, 0277. 0291 + para 0014 + 0149 + 0326)
Although Wright does not explicitly have geographic locations, Kanza more directly claims “Geographic locations” specifically see Kanza Figure 3 and Muir Fig 1 + para 0050-0052, 0070, 0086, 0107.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Wright by adapting any features of Kanza.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Wright teaches location para 0014 + 0149 + 0326 + Figure 8 that is adapted in Kanza and Muir system see Kanza Figure 3.
Re claim 2 & 10: see claim 1 +
further comprising: initiating, by the processor of the processing server, a third blockchain transaction on a core blockchain based on at least the transaction data. (see Wright + Fig 7 item 9, 19 + Figure 8-10 + Fig 1 item item 200 + Para 0172+ Claims 2-4)
Re claim 3 & 11: see claim 1 +
wherein the smart contract is stored in a block in the core blockchain. (see Wright para 0303 + Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 100 + Fig 7 item 13, 5)
Re claim 4 & 12: see claim 1 +
wherein the smart contract is stored in a block in the first blockchain associated with the source geographic key. (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 100 + Fig 7 item 13, 5)
Re claim 5 & 13: see claim 1 +
wherein the smart contract is stored in a block in the second blockchain associated with the destination geographic key. (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 100 + Fig 7 item 13, 5)
Re claim 6 & 14: see claim 1 +
wherein the validation for the proposed blockchain transaction is based on one or more sanctions restricting transactions between different geographic locations. (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 13, 15, 17 + Fig 7 item 7, 27, 17, 15 + para 0222-0223, 0277. 0291)
Re claim 7 & 15: see claim 1 +
wherein the one or more sanctions are imposed by at least one governmental agency. (see Wright para 0127 + Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 13, 15, 17 + Fig 7 item 7, 27, 17, 15 + para 0222-0223, 0277. 0291)
Re claim 8 & 16: see claim 1 +
wherein the first blockchain transaction indicates transfer of a first amount of blockchain currency associated with the first blockchain out of the first blockchain, and the second blockchain transaction indicates transfer of a second amount of blockchain currency associated with the second blockchain in to the second blockchain. (see Wright Figure 8 item 410-440 + Fig 9 item 220-240 + Fig 10 item 450-470 + Fig 1 item 13, 15, 17 + Fig 7 item 7, 27, 17, 15 + para 0222-0223, 0277. 0291)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wright et al., U.S. Patent Pub 2022/0029827 discloses a method is provided, which comprises the steps of: broadcasting a request for location data; receiving from a plurality of nodes location data comprising a distance and a public key corresponding to an area proximal to that node; selecting a public key which is common to a set of the plurality of nodes; and requesting the set of nodes to participate in threshold secret sharing to obtain a cryptographic signature associated with the common public key.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights