DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 19/368,838, was filed on 10/24/2025, and claims priority from Provisional Application 63/711,304, filed 10/24/2024.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 10/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim, claim 9 is a method claim, and claim 16 is an article of manufacture claim or product by process claim (“non-transitory computer readable medium”).
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 1 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
1. A computer system for blockchain-based commodity and financial transactions, the system
comprising:
at least one server comprising at least one processor and a memory storing an application;
at least one user computing device for a seller and at least one user computing device for a buyer, and at least one user computing device for a government agent each in operable communication with the at least one server via a network; and
a database in communication with the at least one server;
wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to:
authenticate the seller and the buyer and establish respective accounts;
receive, from the seller, a listing comprising a commodity identifier, quantity, quality attributes, delivery terms, and a price;
generate a smart contract for the listing that specifies at least a seller identification, a buyer identification, a wallet address or banking information, an order identification, a contract identification, milestone events comprising shipment and delivery, government tariffs and fees, and settlement terms;
commit the smart contract to a blockchain ledger using a blockchain interface;
escrow funds for the listing in association with the smart contract; obtain shipment and delivery status from an oracle interface;
verify delivery by comparing the shipment and delivery status with the milestone events;
release at least a portion of the escrowed funds upon verifying the delivery;
record a settlement on the blockchain ledger; and
update the database to reflect completion of a transaction associated with the smart contract.
More specifically, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“authenticate the seller and the buyer and establish respective accounts”.
“generate a smart contract for the listing that specifies at least a seller identification, a buyer identification, a wallet address or banking information, an order identification, a contract identification, milestone events comprising shipment and delivery, government tariffs and fees, and settlement terms”.
“escrow funds for the listing in association with the smart contract; obtain shipment and delivery status from an oracle interface”.
“verify delivery by comparing the shipment and delivery status with the milestone events”.
“release at least a portion of the escrowed funds upon verifying the delivery”.
The “additional elements” include: "at least one server", "at least one processor", "a memory", "at least one user computing device for a seller", "at least one user computing device for a buyer", "at least one user computing device for a government agent", "a network", and "a database".
The “additional extra-solution elements” include: “receive, from the seller, a listing comprising a commodity identifier, quantity, quality attributes, delivery terms, and a price”, “commit the smart contract to a blockchain ledger using a blockchain interface”, “record a settlement on the blockchain ledger”, and “update the database to reflect completion of a transaction associated with the smart contract”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements ("at least one server", "at least one processor", "a memory", "at least one user computing device for a seller", "at least one user computing device for a buyer", "at least one user computing device for a government agent", "a network", and "a database") do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“receive, from the seller, a listing comprising a commodity identifier, quantity, quality attributes, delivery terms, and a price”, “commit the smart contract to a blockchain ledger using a blockchain interface”, “record a settlement on the blockchain ledger”, and “update the database to reflect completion of a transaction associated with the smart contract”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" ("at least one server", "at least one processor", "a memory", "at least one user computing device for a seller", "at least one user computing device for a buyer", "at least one user computing device for a government agent", "a network", and "a database"), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“receive, from the seller, a listing comprising a commodity identifier, quantity, quality attributes, delivery terms, and a price”, “commit the smart contract to a blockchain ledger using a blockchain interface”, “record a settlement on the blockchain ledger”, and “update the database to reflect completion of a transaction associated with the smart contract”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “storing” steps (“commit the smart contract to a blockchain ledger using a blockchain interface”, “record a settlement on the blockchain ledger”, and “update the database to reflect completion of a transaction associated with the smart contract”), see the court cases Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving” step (“receive, from the seller, a listing comprising a commodity identifier, quantity, quality attributes, delivery terms, and a price”), see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claims 9 and 16 are rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 1. Independent claim 16 is also rejected on the grounds that it recites a computer-readable medium, which is merely another generic computer component.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights