Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed on 05/14/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 16-17 have been amended. Claims 15 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are pending and have been examined.
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
Regarding applicant’s arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the objection(s) of claims 13 and 15 under Claim Objections that the term “fulfil” has been replaced with “fulfill” has been considered, and the arguments are persuasive. The Claim Objections has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 16 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that the claims recite a decentralized computing system including computing nodes, a distributed computing arrangement, user devices, and an agent database of autonomous agents, and further requires an ordered execution workflow involving autonomous-agent communication, trade matching, verification-module locking and verification operations, and execution-module trade-subject locking and settlement operations have been considered, and the arguments are persuasive. The Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 16 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 that Letourneau (US 20160092988) does not disclose the claimed ordered autonomous- agent/database architecture in which trade data and digital-signature information are passed through the recited autonomous-agent interaction and then processed by the claimed verification and execution modules in the amended limitations have been considered, and the arguments are persuasive. The Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments did not address the Double Patenting Rejection and the Double Patenting Rejection has been maintained. Applicant can file a terminal disclaimer to overcome the Double Patenting Rejection. More detail is provided below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a US Application No. 18/515,541 filed on 11/21/2023 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claims 1 and 16 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 1 and 13 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 1 in 12,437,278 B2 comprise the concept of “receive, from a first user device amongst the user devices, a first request for placing a first trade on the platform; receive, from a second user device amongst the user devices, a second request for placing a second trade on the platform; create a communication interface for enabling peer to peer communication between the first autonomous agent and the second autonomous agent via the platform, wherein the first autonomous agent is configured to send a first set of trade parameters and a first digital signature of the first autonomous agent to the second autonomous agent in the agent database, facilitate via a processing interface agent-based trade match via the platform, wherein the second autonomous agent is configured to perform a trade match, and to send the first digital signature along with the first set of trade parameters and a second set of trade parameters, wherein the second set of trade parameters is related to the second user device; employ the processing interface for enabling order book-based trade verification via the platform, send the first digital signature along with the first set of trade parameters and the second set of trade parameters for verification, verify the first digital signature and the first set of trade parameters and the second set of trade parameters, and upon successful verification, transfer the funds for the first trade, complete the decentralized trading by executing the transfer of the locked funds to the second user and executing the transfer of the locked trade subject to the first user.”
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claims 4 and 17 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 1 and 13 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claims 1 and 13 in 12,437,278 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the at least one computing node is configured to: generate a first notification in response to receiving the first request; generate a second notification in response to receiving the second request; send the first and second notifications to the agent database, determine whether a set of autonomous agents configured to serve the first and second requests exists in the agent database; when the set of autonomous agents configured to serve the first and second requests exists in the agent database, employ existing autonomous agents of the set as the first autonomous agent for executing the first request and as the second autonomous agent for executing the second request.”
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 5 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 2 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 2 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the first set of trade parameters comprises at least one of: a timeframe needed for completion of the first trade, a cost associated with the first trade, a quantity associated with the first trade, a quality associated with the first trade, a customized instruction associated with the first trade, an asset type, a preference of the autonomous agents, delivery terms.”
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 6 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 3 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 3 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the second set of trade parameters comprises at least one of: a timeframe needed for completion of the second trade, a cost associated with the second trade, a quantity associated with the second trade, a quality associated with the second trade, a customized instruction associated with the second trade, an asset type, a preference of the autonomous agents, delivery terms.”
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 7 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 6 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 5 of 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the second autonomous agent is configured to use a distributed public key infrastructure (PKI) to verify the first digital signature and the first set of trade parameters.”
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claims 8 and 18 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 1 and 13 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claims 1 and 13 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “a first smart contract for verifying the first digital signature, the first set of trade parameters, and the second set of trade parameters, wherein the execution module comprises a second smart contract for transferring the locked funds to the second user and the locked trade subject to the first user, thereby completing the autonomous agent-based trading, and wherein the first smart contract and the second smart contract are executed on the distributed computing arrangement.”
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 9 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 6 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 6 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the first smart contract is configured to use a distributed public key infrastructure (PKI) to verify the first digital signature and the first set of trade parameters.”
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 10 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 9 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 9 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “a smart contract map configured to associate a given smart contract with a given autonomous agent and to record the given smart contract as being associated with the given autonomous agent.”
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 11 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 10 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 10 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the distributed computing arrangement further comprises an autonomous agent map configured to associate a given autonomous agent with a corresponding functionality and record the given autonomous agent as being associated with the corresponding functionality.”
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 12 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 7 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 7 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein when the transfer of the locked funds is executed for the first trade from the first smart contract to the second smart contract, an ownership of the locked funds is transferred from the first user to the second user and, wherein when the transfer of the locked trade subject is executed for the second trade from the second smart contract to the first smart contract, an ownership of the locked trade subject is transferred from the second user to the first user.”
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 13 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 12 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, claim 12 in 12,437,278 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein when a given autonomous agent fails to fulfill a given request, the at least one computing node is further configured to select another autonomous agent from the agent database and use the another autonomous agent as a given autonomous agent.”
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claims 14 and 19 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 1 and 13 of US Patent 12,437,278 B2. For example, both claims 1 and 13 in 12,437,278 B2 comprise the concept of “employ a decentralized order book model to store information about the first and the second trades across the plurality of computing nodes.”
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, United States Application No. 20160092988 to Letourneau teaches systems and methods for transferring digital assets amongst a network of distributed users without the need to transfer the assets to an external party, such as an escrow agent, are provided. The transferring of assets may be in the form of electronic transactions between pluralities of currencies or assets. Temporary and localized escrow services may be created on a user terminal for safely overseeing the process of transferring digital assets. The trade instructions and execution orders for the transfer of assets may be validated over a de-centralized network of user terminals, such as the user terminals of traders. This type of network allows secure peer-to-peer electronic transactions to occur between distributed and anonymous users or participants, which are assumed to be trustless. In such networks, the transactions may be handled by cryptographic mathematical algorithms and which are known to be identical across all users or participants of the same network. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20200250752 to Sugarman teaches systems, methods, and program products for providing Digital Asset Tokens whose value is backed by a Value Bank that has the potential for inflation-protected, tax-efficient and compounding value growth. The issuance and management of the Digital Asset Tokens are controlled by a central authority. Each Digital Token is represented by a Smart Contract on a Blockchain. Over time, the valuation of the Digital Asset Tokens increases as both (i) the Residual Value relating to existing GLs increase in value and (ii) as additional GLs are added by virtue of the Quantum Generator Model. Trading of the Digital Asset Tokens occurs via a settlement network, wherein the settlement network carries out and stores Transactions in a distributed ledger for transparency. The Digital Asset Tokens may be purchased using fiat currencies or electronic currencies, such as cryptocurrencies, via a digital Exchange. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20240037646 to Sheikh teaches a distributed computer system that comprises worker nodes that are coupled together via a data communication network to exchange data therebetween, wherein the worker nodes include computing arrangements and local databases to process and store data therein. The worker nodes are autonomous agents (AAs), wherein the distributed computer system is configured to use the worker nodes for fulfilling a service request. The distributed computer system also comprises a processing arrangement that generates a bloom tree, driven by cryptographic hash values, ensuring accurate autonomous agent functionality identification, while proof-based decision-making enhances task execution. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20210192517 to Barnes teaches an exchange platform and a settlement platform. The settlement platform is to generate settlement instructions comprising a set of net positions held by transaction participants with respect to transaction submissions submitted to the exchange platform by the transaction participants for exchange of assets via an off-ledger settlement entity. The settlement platform is to host a private distributed ledger network to store a record of positions held by the transaction participants with respect to the assets, update the record of positions according to the settlement instructions, and transmit an update of the record of positions to the off-ledger settlement entity. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20240302803 to Bagoly teaches distributed computer system enabling application of autonomous agents (AAs) across domains, comprising: primary distributed ledger arrangement to implement software framework that comprises: client-agent device (client-AA) to receive service request (SR), generate objective associated with SR, send objective to agent device (AA); processing arrangement to create clusters of AAs based on similarity of their functionalities; secondary distributed ledger arrangement (SDLA) to coordinate collective learning of AAs by sharing model updates in clusters, AAs in cluster is configured to train computing(s) model, SDLA comprises: first secondary distributed ledger (FSDL), comprising language model module to send context of SR, second secondary distributed ledger (SSDL), comprising machine learning model agent (MLMA) to: send list and protocol specification (PS) update to AA. AA comprises context builder software module to obtain list, PS module to generate PS for fulfilment of SR, and build executor module to compose AAs associated into further autonomous agent (further-AA), further-AA implement PSs to fulfil SR by client-AA.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim, an agent database comprising a plurality of autonomous agents associated with the plurality of user devices, wherein at least one computing node is configured to: receive, from a first user device, a first request for placing a first trade on a trading platform; and receive, from a second user device, a second request for placing a second trade on the trading platform, wherein a first autonomous agent is associated with the first user device and is configured to send to a second autonomous agent in the agent database, via a communication interface, a first set of trade parameters corresponding to the first trade and a first digital signature of the first autonomous agent, wherein the second autonomous agent is associated with the second user device and is configured to perform a trade match between the first set of trade parameters and a second set of trade parameters corresponding to the second trade, wherein the decentralized computing system is configured to automatically create the communication interface when the first and the second autonomous agents are required to interact with each other to fulfill requests for the first and the second trades.
Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 16 is analogous to claim 1, and thus is allowable for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claims 17-19 are dependent on claim 16 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
A terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,437,278 B2 (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights