DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 05/12/2025.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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
Claims 23-50 have been canceled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “[a] computer method and graphical user interface (GUI) for executing a smart commodity contract, comprising: --” (emphasis added), and then proceeds to recite method steps of the GUI. A single claim which claims both the GUI and the method steps of using the GUI is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a GUI that allows one to perform the method steps, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the GUI to perform the method steps. See In re Katx Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For examination purposes, the preamble of claim 1 (and further dependent claims) will be interpreted to read as follows: “[a] computer method for executing a smart commodity contract, comprising:--”.
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.
As per claims 1-22, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
• Claim 1 recites:
displaying, on an electronic display of a user device, a GUI including an indication of a commodity contract for future delivery of a commodity at a nominal price, the nominal price including estimated carry costs, according to a smart contract carried by at least one non-transitory computer readable memory and accessed via a distributed ledger;
displaying, on the electronic display via the GUI, a payment field for receiving electronic payment for the future delivery of the commodity at the nominal price;
receiving, via the GUI, an entry corresponding to a link to a buyer account or wallet to operate as a source of the electronic payment;
transferring, from the buyer account or wallet into a [entity] server computer, the at least partial electronic payment for the future delivery of the commodity;
displaying, via the GUI, a reserve account balance in an amount specified by the smart contract, the reserve account balance including an apportionment for the estimated carry costs;
receiving, into the buyer account from the [entity] server computer, an electronic token representing the smart contract for future delivery of the commodity at a specified location for an actual but unknown price;
displaying, in the GUI, information corresponding to receiving the electronic token;
receiving and displaying, in the GUI, cost data corresponding to an actual carry cost of handling the commodity;
displaying, in the GUI, a modified reserve account balance requirement; and
receiving an input, via the GUI from the buyer, of an agreement to transfer funds from or to the link to the source of the electronic payment corresponding to the modified reserve account balance requirement.
• Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method, a system, and a manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
• Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of transmitting and displaying agreement information (a certain method of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of additional claim elements, because it is common to analyze transaction information to prevent fraud in sales activities/behaviors. That is, other than reciting “electronic display”, “user device”, “GUI”, “smart contract”, non-transitory computer readable memory”, “distributed ledger”, “electronic”, “wallet”, “server computer”, “electronic”, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as performed by a person.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, the additional elements of “electronic display”, “user device”, “GUI”, non-transitory computer readable memory”, “electronic”, “server computer”, “electronic” merely use a generic computer device and/or generic computer components as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) such as “smart contract”, “distributed ledger”, generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of blockchain. The additional claim elements(s) such as “wallet”, generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of ewallet.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
• Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, which further recite the abstract idea without any extra additional elements.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 which include additional claim elements that merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, “GUI”, “server computer”, “non-transitory computer readable media”. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) such as “smart contract”, “distributed ledger”, “blockchain” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of blockchain; and the additional claim elements(s) such as “wallet” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of wallet.
Therefore, claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(S) 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Vengalathur (US 20170351993) discloses an invention for estimating a delivery cost for a commodity at a nominal price, displaying the estimated delivery cost to a user, receiving payment input for the delivery from the user, transferring the delivery cost from an account of the user to a service provider, receiving and displaying an actual cost for the delivery, and conducting a transaction between the user and the service provider for the delivery cost. In addition, Vincent (WO 2018020373) discloses an invention for a token representing a smart contract relating to the access to and/or use of the internet-enabled resource. In addition, Dasari (US 20200051011) discloses an invention for using a smart contract to conduct a delivery when the conditions of the smart contract are satisfied. The cited prior art of Vengalathus, Vincent, and Dasari do not teach a recited feature that “displaying a GUI including an indication of a commodity contract for future delivery of a commodity at a nominal price, the nominal price including estimated carry costs, according to a smart contract carried by at least one non-transitory computer readable memory and accessed via a distributed ledger”, “receiving an electronic token representing the smart contract for future delivery of the commodity at a specified location for an actual but unknown price”, and no prior art was revealed in Examiner’s search that fairly taught or suggested such a feature. Therefore, as no prior art fairly teaches or suggests each and every element of independent claims 1, Examiner holds that claims 1-22 are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070011017 to Field for disclosing
A system and method are provided for dynamically modifying production speed, shipment options and/or creating multiple shipments from an original custom-manufactured product order, with different quantities, shipping methods and/or destinations, and automatically calculating the resulting prices and estimated delivery dates with the modification before the modification is submitted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699