DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed March 20, 2026. Claims 7-20 were canceled. Claims 21-34 added. Claims 1-6 and 21-34 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on March 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has canceled the unelected claims; therefore, the arguments are moot.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-6 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-6 are directed to a method. Claims 21-27 are directed to a system comprising a processor. Claims 28-34 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of sending a prediction to a user. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to sending a prediction to a user. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method, comprising:
selecting, by a user, a particular model of a plurality of models;
deploying the particular model for use with a particular blockchain;
gathering respective data from one or more digital wallets associated with the particular blockchain;
generating at least one prediction using the particular model and the respective data from the one or more digital wallets; and
sending the at least one prediction to the user.
Independent claims 20 and 28 recite similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the blockchain and digital wallets are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of sending a prediction to a user. Viewed as a whole, the use of blockchain and digital wallets as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the blockchain and digital wallets to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of sending a prediction to a user. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of sending a prediction to a user. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as predicting a likelihood that a given digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets is machine controlled; and
identifying, based on respective preferences of the one or more digital wallets, a subset of the one or more digital wallets.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1-4, 21-24,26, 28-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0053959 to Tao et al. (“Tao”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0261692 to Sliwka et al. (“Sliwka”).
As per claim 1, Tao discloses selecting, by a user, a particular model of a plurality of models (paragraph [0027] – the training engine may operate in an offline manner to train the model… reinforcement learning to personalize a general model/initial model to a particular user…user selected… model);
deploying the particular model for use with a particular blockchain (paragraphs [0024] – machine learning engine may be deployed; [0034]- distributed network environment);
generating at least one prediction using the particular model (paragraph [0026] -input data includes information associated with user device, historical data related to customer accounts, …in the prediction engine, current data may be input to preprocessing…uses preprocessed current data, which is input into the model; [0031]); and
sending the at least one prediction to the user (paragraph [0026] – output a prediction and [0031] -may predict further actions for the customer and may provide initial guesses or recommendations for performing transactions with the merchant).
Tao does not expressly disclose generating at last one prediction using respective data form the one or more digital wallets; and
gathering respective data from one or more digital wallets associated with the particular blockchain.
Sliwka discloses generating at last one prediction using respective data form the one or more digital wallets (paragraph [1125] - the intelligence system 10008 may generate various labels and/or predictions about nodes corresponding to wallets); and
gathering respective data from one or more digital wallets associated with the particular blockchain (paragraphs [1125] -generate labels and/or predictions about nodes corresponding to wallets...attributes may be used during clustering and [1135] – a user may view a particular wallet on a social graph, view the edges connecting the wallet node to other nodes…any labels associated with the nodes (e.g. clusters, cluster labels and/or predictions about wallet node)… blockchain data pipeline system may retrieve the corresponding data and provide it to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tao by including the features of Sliwka as these systems efficiently incorporate known modeling techniques into a distributed network. Applying the known technique of Sliwka into Tao would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
Referring to claim 2, Sliwka discloses wherein generating the at least one prediction includes predicting a duration a given digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets will hold a given token (paragraph [0744] -predict a period of time until a certain type of token is exhausted).
Referring to claim 3, Sliwka discloses generating the at least one prediction includes predicting a likelihood that a given digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets is machine controlled (paragraph [1125] and [1135)).
Referring to claim 4, Tao in combination with Sliwka disclose generating the at least one prediction includes identifying, based on respective preferences of the one or more digital wallets, a subset of the one or more digital wallets (see claim 1 above).
Referring to claim 6, Tao in combination with Sliwka disclose collating review information for the particular model from one or more previous users of the particular model (see claim 1 above).
Claims 21-24 and 26 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1-4 and 6.
Claims 28-31 and 33 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1-4 and 6.
Claims 5, 25, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao and Sliwka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20260064968 to Spannhake, II et al. (“Spannhake”).
As per claim 5, Tao and Sliwka disclose the method of claim 1. Sliwka also discloses using API and token identifiers. The references do not expressly disclose providing an authentication token to the user, wherein the authentication token is associated with an application programming interface endpoint associated with the particular model.
Spannhake discloses providing an authentication token to the user, wherein the authentication token is associated with an application programming interface endpoint associated with the particular model (paragraphs [0126] and [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tao by including the features of Sliwka and Spannhake to provide a secure means of processing and transmitting data. Applying the known technique of Sliwka in combination with Spannhake into Tao would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of Sliwka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0050929 to Kades (“Kades”).
As per claim 27, Tao and Sliwka disclose them method of claim 1. The references do not expressly disclose sending the at least one prediction includes sending a link to a location where the at least one prediction is stored. Kades disclose sending a predication that includes a link to a location where the least one prediction is stored (paragraph [0040]).
Claims 34 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 27.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights