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 the Application
This final office action is in response to the communication filed on 07/02/2026. Claims 2-20 have been added. Claims 1 has been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 1-20 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 11 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
creating a fractionalized risk pool for a real estate property, the fractionalized risk pool comprising a plurality of asset tokens and an occupancy token;
receiving title information associated with the real estate property;
updating the ledger with information comprising the title information, a timestamp, and a property valuation;
monitoring property price movements and updating, in real-time, the property valuation on the edger based on the property price movements;
receiving a transaction initiated from a user;
determining a real-time equity of the user based on the ledger;
determining an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user, wherein the real-time equity serves as security for credit associated with the transaction;
updating the blockchain ledger based on the approval status.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations recited above describe a process of approving or denying a transaction for a real estate property based on a user’s current equity in the property which is a commercial interaction that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping of abstract idea. Additionally, the limitations also fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Specifically, a human being can mentally (or with pen and paper) create a fractionalized risk pool for a real estate property comprising tokens; receive title information associated with the real estate property; update a ledger with information comprising the title information, a timestamp, and a property valuation; monitor property price movements; receive a transaction comprising an amount and a user; determining a real-time equity of the user based on the ledger; determine an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user; and update the ledger based on the approval status. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 recites the additional limitations of:
[The steps are performed] by a processor;
[the ledger is] a blockchain ledger;
the plurality of asset tokens and the occupancy token issued using a blockchain ledger;
[monitoring property price movement] on an external server;
[receiving], over a network, [title information];
[receiving a transaction initiated from a user] transaction device via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank; and
transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically:
Reciting that the steps are performed by a processor merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The limitations [the ledger is] a blockchain ledger and the plurality of asset tokens and the occupancy token issued using blockchain ledger are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At most, specifying that the ledger is a blockchain ledger and issuing asset tokens and the occupancy token “using a blockchain ledger” only recites the idea of a solution (issuing tokens using blockchain) without reciting the steps of performing the solution. Further, Examiner notes that the use of known blockchain processes alone, absent a showing of specific technical improvements, is insufficient to demonstrate technological improvement. Here, the blockchain ledger is simply being used as a ledger to store data. While the general use of a blockchain ledger provides certain inherent benefits, there is no claimed improvement to the underlying blockchain technology.
The limitations [receiving], over a network, [title information]; [receiving a transaction] via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank; and transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device are all recited at a high level of generality transmitting and receiving information from a generic bank or credit card network. At this level of generality, these limitations merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., transmitting and receiving data over a network). Further, with respect to “transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device”, Examiner respectfully notes that the credit card network, issuing bank and transaction device are not positively recited. The processor is merely configured to transmit the approval status to the credit card network or issuing bank. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Finally, with respect to [monitoring property price movement] on an external server, Examiner notes this limitation is recited at a high level of generality merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering over a network).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it); generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; or merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the transmitting, receiving, and monitoring limitations were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Examiner notes these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (transmitting and receiving information over a network; monitoring information) and that transmitting data over a network is well-understood routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner as evidenced by the decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, a conclusion that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent system claim 1 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the independent method claim 11. The additional limitations in claim 1 of a processor configured to perform the recited steps add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. The components are merely providing a particular technological environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 merely further narrow the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment / apply it and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 7/2/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 7/2/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that:
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The Examiner characterized the claims as directed to "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" and "mental processes." However, claim 1 recites specific technical operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. For example, claim 1 recites "monitoring property price movements on an external server and updating, in real-time, the property valuation on the blockchain ledger based on the property price movements." A human cannot mentally monitor an external server or update a blockchain ledger in real-time. Similarly, the claim recites receiving a transaction "initiated from a user transaction device, via at least one of a credit card network or an issuing bank" and transmitting the approval status back through that network to the user transaction device. These operations involve specific computer network communications and blockchain operations that are inherently technological and cannot be performed mentally. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea (remarks page 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that the limitations of creating a fractionalized risk pool for a real estate property, the fractionalized risk pool comprising a plurality of asset tokens and an occupancy token receiving title information associated with the real estate property; updating the ledger with information comprising the title information, a timestamp, and a property valuation; monitoring property price movements and updating, in real-time, the property valuation on the edger based on the property price movements; receiving a transaction initiated from a user; determining a real-time equity of the user based on the ledger; determining an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user, wherein the real-time equity serves as security for credit associated with the transaction; updating the blockchain ledger based on the approval status can be performed by a human with a pen and paper ledger. Specifically, a human being can mentally (or with pen and paper) create a fractionalized risk pool for a real estate property comprising tokens; receive title information associated with the real estate property; update a ledger with information comprising the title information, a timestamp, and a property valuation; monitor property price movements; receive a transaction comprising an amount and a user; determining a real-time equity of the user based on the ledger; determine an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user; and update the ledger based on the approval status. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Further, the claims a process of approving or denying a transaction for a real estate property based on a user’s current equity in the property which is a commercial interaction that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping of abstract idea. The network communications and blockchain operations are additional elements that have been analyzed under Step 2A, prong 2.
Second, Applicant argues that:
Claim 1, as amended, recites specific technical elements that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. First, claim 1 now recites "monitoring property price movements on an external server and updating, in real-time, the property valuation on the blockchain ledger based on the property price movements." This limitation specifies a particular technical implementation involving real-time monitoring of an external server and dynamic updating of the blockchain ledger. The blockchain ledger is not merely recited as a generic database or storage medium that could be replaced with any similar technology. Rather, the blockchain ledger's inherent characteristics, including its immutability, transparency, and capacity for real-time synchronization across distributed nodes, are functionally integrated into the claimed system. These specific technical characteristics of the blockchain ledger enable the real-time property valuation updates to be transparently verified by all participants, which could not be achieved by simply substituting a conventional database (remarks page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to monitoring property price movements on an external server, Examiner notes that this limitation is recited at a very high level of generality monitoring a generic server for price movements. At most this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering) from a generic server with property valuation information. With respect to updating in real-time the property valuation on the blockchain ledger, Examiner notes that the use of known blockchain processes alone, absent a showing of specific technical improvements, is insufficient to demonstrate technological improvement. Here, the blockchain ledger is simply being used as a ledger to store data. The inherent properties of a blockchain ledger (e.g., transparency and synchronization across nodes) does not amount to an improvement as there is no claimed improvement to the underlying blockchain technology.
Third, Applicant argues:
claim 1, as amended, recites a specific transaction processing flow involving multiple distinct technical components working in concert. Specifically, claim 1 recites "receiving a transaction initiated from a user transaction device, via at least one of a credit card network or an issuing bank" and further recites that "the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device." This defines a particular technical architecture in which a transaction originates from a user transaction device, is processed through a credit card network or issuing bank, and the approval status is communicated back to the user transaction device through that same network infrastructure. This is not merely a generic recitation of transmitting and receiving data, but rather specifies a particular technical flow involving specific components working together in an ordered combination (remarks page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that the credit card network, issuing bank and transaction device are not positively recited. Claim 1 merely requires that a processor receives a transaction request via a generic bank or credit card network and that an approval status is transmitted to generic credit card network or bank which can communicate that status to the user. Receiving a transaction request and transmitting an approval status amounts to no more than sending and receiving data to automate an economic process of approving a transaction based on ensuring that equity meets a threshold.
Fourth, Applicant argues that:
Third, claim 1, as amended, recites that "the real-time equity serves as security for credit associated with the transaction." This limitation ties the real-time equity determination from the blockchain ledger directly to the credit transaction approval process, establishing a specific technical integration between the blockchain-based equity tracking system and the credit card transaction authorization system. The blockchain ledger is essential to this integration because it provides the immutable and verifiable record of property valuations and ownership that enables real-time equity to serve as security. A conventional database lacking the blockchain's inherent immutability and transparent verification capabilities could not provide the same level of trust and security required for real-time equity to serve as collateral for credit transactions (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of a blockchain ledger is recited at a high level of generality. The same method could be performed with a conventional database. While the blockchain may provide the inherent benefits noted by Applicant, the use of known blockchain processes alone, absent a showing of specific technical improvements, is insufficient to demonstrate technological improvement. Here, simply replacing a conventional database with a blockchain ledger is not sufficient to provide a technological improvement.
Fifth, Applicant argues that:
Applicant submits that the ordered combination of these elements provides a specific technical solution rather than merely applying an abstract idea on a computer. The claims recite a system that monitors property price movements on an external server, updates property valuations in real-time on a blockchain ledger, receives transactions initiated from a user transaction device through a credit card network or issuing bank, determines real-time equity based on the blockchain ledger, uses that real-time equity as security for credit associated with the transaction, and communicates the approval status back to the user transaction device through the credit card network or issuing bank. This ordered combination of elements imposes meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea and represents a specific technical implementation for managing real estate backed credit transactions that leverages the unique technical capabilities of blockchain technology (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of [receiving], over a network, [title information]; [receiving a transaction] via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank; and transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device are all recited at a high level of generality transmitting and receiving information from a generic bank or credit card network. At this level of generality, these limitations merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., transmitting and receiving data over a network). Further, with respect to “transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device”, Examiner respectfully notes that the credit card network, issuing bank and transaction device are not positively recited. The processor is merely configured to transmit the approval status to the credit card network or issuing bank. Finally, with respect to [monitoring property price movement] on an external server, Examiner notes this limitation is recited at a high level of generality merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering over a network). Examiner notes that as claimed, the same method could be performed with a conventional database. While the blockchain may provide the inherent benefits noted by Applicant, the use of known blockchain processes alone, absent a showing of specific technical improvements, is insufficient to demonstrate technological improvement. Here, simply replacing a conventional database with a blockchain ledger is not sufficient to provide a technological improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Fifth, Applicant argues that:
Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Applicant submits that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. The specific combination of monitoring property price movements on an external server, updating property valuations in real-time on the blockchain ledger, receiving transactions initiated from a user transaction device, determining real-time equity based on the blockchain ledger where the real-time equity serves as security for credit, and communicating the approval status back to the user transaction device through the credit card network or issuing bank represents an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. This specific technical implementation is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, but rather represents a particular solution to the technical problem of enabling real-time, verifiable equity-based credit
transactions
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations [receiving], over a network, [title information]; [receiving a transaction] via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank; and transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device are all recited at a high level of generality transmitting and receiving information from a generic bank or credit card network. At this level of generality, these limitations merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., transmitting and receiving data over a network). Further, with respect to “transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device, wherein the at least one of the credit card network or the issuing bank communicates the approval status to the user transaction device”, Examiner respectfully notes that the credit card network, issuing bank and transaction device are not positively recited. The processor is merely configured to transmit the approval status to the credit card network or issuing bank. Finally, with respect to [monitoring property price movement] on an external server, Examiner notes this limitation is recited at a high level of generality merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering over a network). Examiner notes that as claimed, the same method could be performed with a conventional database. While the blockchain may provide the inherent benefits noted by Applicant, the use of known blockchain processes alone, absent a showing of specific technical improvements, is insufficient to demonstrate technological improvement. Here, simply replacing a conventional database with a blockchain ledger is not sufficient to provide a technological improvement. Transmitting/receiving data from a database is well-understood, routine and conventional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20250078049 (“Fakieh”) teaches digital tokens that represent fractional ownership of a property on a blockchain ledger and updating the blockchain ledger with a chain of title for the real estate property
US Patent Application Publication Number 20200394714 (“Strnad”) teaches monitoring earned equity levels for a real property; determining whether a minimum level of earned equity will remain after a requested sale of equity; and approving or denying the requested sale based on the determination
US Patent Application Publication Number 20210133875 (“Foote”) teaches real estate equity tokens on the blockchain
US Patent Application Publication Number 20200042989 (“Ramadoss”) teaches a smart contract in the form of a cryptocurrency that provides equity participation to an investor in a property such as a homeowner's residential real estate property
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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 on (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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights