DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Application filed on July 31, 2025 for application 19287313
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 (Group 1) have been elected with traverse.
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/25/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of all claims 1-20 can be made without serious burden, because a thorough search and examination of the claims in Group I would be relevant to the search and examination of the claims in Group II and Group III. This is not found persuasive because the subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. For example, Claims 1-10 are directed to creating an account linking a transaction or simply verifying identity by an external authority before creating an account. Next, Claims 11-14 are directed to receiving payment for a published recipe or in response to validation of the recipe blockchain transaction. Lastly, Claims 15-20 are directed to accumulating assets after selection of an item off a blockchain. Examiner believes that restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
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 1-10 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 1-10 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite creating accounts for linking transactions which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receive a consensual account identifier (CAID) assigned to a user; create, by the user, an account with an external authority; receive, from the external authority, a payment network identifier (PNID) assigned to the user by the external authority in response to creating the account; create an account linking transaction including at least the user's CAID and the user's PNID; broadcast the account linking transaction.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “mental processes” classified under “concepts performed in the human mind” (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for creating an account with a customer identifier, receiving a payment identifier from an external authority and merging or linking them together into a single transaction before broadcasting it . Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a distributed consensual system consisting of a blockchain network, a computing device comprising a memory and one processor and an external authority network as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(d)). [The use of a distributed consensual system consisting of a blockchain network, a computing device comprising a memory and one processor and an external authority network to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the distributed consensual system consisting of a blockchain network, a computing device comprising a memory and one processor and an external authority network perform the steps or functions of “receive a consensual account identifier (CAID) assigned to a user; create, by the user, an account with an external authority; receive, from the external authority, a payment network identifier (PNID) assigned to the user by the external authority in response to creating the account; create an account linking transaction including at least the user's CAID and the user's PNID; broadcast the account linking transaction”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), 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 claims 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, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of a distributed consensual system consisting of a blockchain network, a computing device comprising a memory and one processor and an external authority network, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a distributed consensual system consisting of a blockchain network, a computing device comprising a memory and one processor and an external authority network to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of creating accounts for linking transactions. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the distributed consensual system consisting of a blockchain network, a computing device comprising a memory and one processor and an external authority network perform the steps of “receive a consensual account identifier (CAID) assigned to a user, create, by the user, an account with an external authority, receive, from the external authority, a payment network identifier (PNID) assigned to the user by the external authority in response to creating the account; create an account linking transaction including at least the user's CAID and the user's PNID; broadcast the account linking transaction”. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of creating accounts for linking transactions. 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 distributed consensual system consisting of a blockchain network, a computing device comprising a memory and one processor and an external authority network to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims describe details regarding creating a recipe transaction, using details of the recipe and receipt, broadcast the recipe transaction, validating the receipt before executing the recipe transaction further describe the abstract idea of creating accounts for linking transactions. 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
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano et al. (US 2018/0075421 A1) in view of Davis (US 2016/0342976 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Serrano discloses: A distributed consensual system for containing authority, the distributed consensual system including a blockchain network comprising a computing device of a plurality of computing devices configured to participate in the blockchain network, the computing device comprising (¶0014, ¶0015, ¶0018): a memory storing a blockchain of the blockchain network, the blockchain supporting the plurality of computing devices of the blockchain network; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to:
receive a consensual account identifier (CAID) assigned to a user of the computing device by the blockchain network (¶0038 “LPS subsystem 10 may receive a request for a loan from a customer client subsystem 100b that may include various information such as unique customer client identifier”, ¶0040, ¶0041)
create, by the user associated with the computing device, an account with an external authority network (¶0038, ¶0040)
receive, from the external authority network, a payment network identifier (PNID) assigned to the user by the external authority network in response to creating the account (¶0031)
Serrano does not disclose: receive, from the external authority network, a payment network identifier (PNID) assigned to the user by the external authority network in response to creating the account, create an account linking blockchain transaction including at least the user's CAID and the user's PNID and broadcast the account linking blockchain transaction to the blockchain.
Davis however discloses:
receive, from the external authority network (“the payee 104”), a payment network identifier (PNID) (“address identifier- destination address”) assigned to the user (“payer”) by the external authority network in response to creating the account (¶0034, ¶0037 “The address identifier may be the destination address for the blockchain currency, as provided by the payee 104, ¶0058).
create an account linking blockchain transaction including at least the user's CAID and the user's PNID (¶0044, ¶0058, ¶0059)
broadcast the account linking blockchain transaction to the blockchain (¶0066, ¶0068, ¶0077)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Serrano to include “receive, from the external authority network, a payment network identifier (PNID) assigned to the user by the external authority network in response to creating the account, create an account linking blockchain transaction including at least the user's CAID and the user's PNID and broadcast the account linking blockchain transaction to the blockchain”, as disclosed in Davis, in order to allow payers and payees engage in blockchain transactions with added safeguards against fraud and risk (see Davis ¶0046).
Regarding Claim 3, Serrano discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: commit resources on the external authority network for execution of a payment transaction for the recipe (¶0027, ¶0032, ¶0037).
Regarding Claim 4, Serrano discloses wherein the committed resources include a payment towards the recipe SKU (¶0027).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination Serrano and Davis discloses invention as above.
Davis further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the external authority network, a receipt in response to the payment towards the recipe SKU (¶0034, ¶0093, ¶0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Serrano to include “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the external authority network, a receipt in response to the payment towards the recipe SKU”, as disclosed in Davis, in order to allow payers and payees engage in blockchain transactions with added safeguards against fraud and risk (see Davis ¶0046).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination Serrano and Davis discloses invention as above.
Davis further discloses wherein the receipt is signed and uniquely identified by the external authority network (¶0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Serrano to include “wherein the receipt is signed and uniquely identified by the external authority network”, as disclosed in Davis, in order to allow payers and payees engage in blockchain transactions with added safeguards against fraud and risk (see Davis ¶0046).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination Serrano and Davis discloses invention as above.
Davis further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: create a recipe blockchain transaction including at least details of the recipe and the receipt; and broadcast the recipe blockchain transaction to the blockchain (¶0044, ¶0058, ¶0059, ¶0066, ¶0068, ¶0077)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Serrano to include “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: create a recipe blockchain transaction including at least details of the recipe and the receipt; and broadcast the recipe blockchain transaction to the blockchain.”, as disclosed in Davis, in order to allow payers and payees engage in blockchain transactions with added safeguards against fraud and risk (see Davis ¶0046).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination Serrano and Davis discloses invention as above.
Davis further discloses wherein the blockchain validates that the receipt is correct and not yet redeemed (¶0077)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Serrano to include “wherein the blockchain validates that the receipt is correct and not yet redeemed.”, as disclosed in Davis, in order to allow payers and payees engage in blockchain transactions with added safeguards against fraud and risk (see Davis ¶0046).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination Serrano and Davis discloses invention as above.
Davis further discloses wherein the blockchain executes the recipe blockchain transaction in response to successful validation of the receipt (¶0077)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Serrano to include “wherein the blockchain executes the recipe blockchain transaction in response to successful validation of the receipt..”, as disclosed in Davis, in order to allow payers and payees engage in blockchain transactions with added safeguards against fraud and risk (see Davis ¶0046).
Regarding Claim 10, Serrano discloses wherein the user's PNID is displayed on a profile of the user in response to the account linking blockchain transaction being confirmed by the blockchain network (¶0015).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Davis in further view of Tran et al. (US 2019/0358515 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Serrano and Davis does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: signal, by the user, willingness to accept debt on the external authority network, wherein the user signals willingness by: formulating a recipe for the blockchain network; setting a price for the recipe; and receiving, from the external authority network, a SKU for the recipe that is created based on the price set for the recipe.
Tran however discloses: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: signal, by the user, willingness to accept debt on the external authority network, wherein the user signals willingness by: formulating a recipe for the blockchain network; setting a price for the recipe; and receiving, from the external authority network, a SKU for the recipe that is created based on the price set for the recipe (¶0130, ¶0133, ¶0135, ¶0314, ¶0320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Serrano and Davis to include “formulating a recipe for the blockchain network.”, as disclosed in Tran, in order to provide a system that generates a contract template designer user interface to create and modify these templates in a simple user-friendly manner (see Tran ¶0130).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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 W 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights