DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 14, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on March, 05, 2026 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Intended use/ Result Language:
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
The phrase " to transfer from a source in the computing system to a DLT-based client destination," is the intended use of why the transfer instruction is received. This phrase does not affect how the positively recited steps are performed.
Regarding claims 5 and 16:
The phrase “to identify the second destination based on the identifier of the DLT -based client destination.” is the intended use of using a mapping.
Regarding claims 6 and 17:
The phrase “to identify the second destination based on the identifier of the DLT-based client destination.” is the intended use of executing an artificial intelligence model.
Regarding claims 8 and 19:
The phrase “to generate an output indicating the conversion is required.” is the intended use of the large language model.
These portions are given no patentable weight because the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
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 recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-11) and a machine (claims 12-20) Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method for enabling transfers across different communication protocols using distributed ledger technology (DLT), comprising:
establishing, by a DLT application executed by one or more processors, a first connection using a first communication protocol to an application executed by a computing system, and a second connection using a second communication protocol to one or more nodes hosting a distributed ledger;
receiving, by the DLT application and from a client device, a transfer instruction configured for transmission to the application to transfer from a source in the computing system to a DLT-based client destination, the transfer instruction comprising an identifier of the source and an identifier of the DLT-based client destination;
responsive to determining, by the DLT application by triggering execution of a conversion agent, that a conversion is required for the transfer,
generating, by the DLT application by triggering execution of an instruction generation agent, a modified transfer instruction comprising an identifier of a second destination replacing the DLT-based client destination;
receiving, by the DLT application using the first communication protocol and from the application, an indication of completion of the transfer; and
generating, by the DLT application by triggering execution of a ledger agent, an update instruction that causes, using the second communication protocol, the one or more nodes to add a record of the transfer to the distributed ledger, thereby updating the DLT-based client destination.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of acting as intermediary between DLT based clients to perform a transfer. The claims achieves this by establishing a connection between the two clients, receive a transfer instruction from a first client including an identifier, responsive to a conversion determination, generating a modified transfer instruction comprising the identifier, receiving indication of completion of the transfer and generating an update instruction. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., intermediary of an interaction (e.g., transfer) between participants in transaction). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 1 recite the additional elements of a distributed ledger application, one or more processors, an application, a computing system, one or more nodes, a distributed ledger, an agent and a client device. Claim 12 recite the additional elements of a system, an application server, a processor, a distributed ledger application, one or more processors, an application, a computing system, one or more nodes, a distributed ledger, an agent and a client device. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a system, an application server, a processor, a distributed ledger application, one or more processors, an application, a computing system, one or more nodes, a distributed ledger, an agent and a client device in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a system, an application server, a processor, an application, one or more processors, an application, a computing system, one or more nodes, an agent and a client device) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 13 further refine the abstract idea by receiving an input the transfer from the source to the DLT-based client destination. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by detecting whether the user input contains errors and generating a modified transfer instruction. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by requesting additional data to correct the one or more errors and generate the modified transfer instruction. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by using a mapping to identify the second destination based on the identifier of the DLT-based client destination. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 17 further refine the abstract idea by generating the modified transfer instruction and indicating the intended use of an artificial intelligence model. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by receive a message initiating a transfer and transmit subsequent messages. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by describing the determining that the conversion is required (e.g., a large language model is executed) and further describing the intended use of said model. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9 and 20 further refine the abstract idea by receiving a second transfer instruction and responsive to determining a conversion is not required and matching instructions, initiating the second transfer. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 further refine the abstract idea by transmitting, the modified transfer instruction to the application. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 further refine the abstract idea by describing the agents. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 18 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moiyallah et al (US 2021/0166223 A1), in view of Arora et al (US 2021/0158312 A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 12:
Claim 1: A method for enabling transfers across different communication protocols using distributed ledger technology (DLT), comprising:
Claim 12: A system for enabling transfers across different communication protocols using distributed ledger technology (DLT), the system comprising:
establishing, by a DLT application executed by one or more processors, a first connection using a first communication protocol to an application executed by a computing system, and a second connection using a second communication protocol to one or more nodes hosting a distributed ledger; (See at least Moiyallah, [0017]; [0095]; [0113] [0121]; The source application may not be compatible with the destination system. For example, the destination application/ system may use a second data/communication format that is incompatible with the first data/communication format used by the source system/application.)
receiving, by the DLT application and from om a client device, a transfer instruction configured for transmission to the application to transfer from a source in the computing system to a DLT-based client destination, the transfer instruction comprising an identifier of the source and an identifier of the DLT-based client destination; (See at least Moiyallah, [0017]; [0049]; [0121] A first request may be initiated by a source application and request a transfer of a first amount of currency to a destination application. A second request may be initiated by the destination digital wallet application and request a transfer of a second amount of currency to another digital wallet application. The bridging protocol may receive a request. The request may be initiated by a source digital wallet system. The request may ask a digital wallet system to transfer currency to a destination digital wallet system; The source account may be located based on the unique identifier assigned to the currency. The source account may be located based on an identity of the sender of the currency. The sender may be a name or other identifying information assigned to the source digital wallet.)
responsive to determining, by the DLT application by triggering execution of a conversion agent, that a conversion is required for the transfer, (See at least Moiyallah, [0098]; [0133] response to receiving a transfer request from digital wallet systems 101, bridging protocol 103 may utilize conversion engine 105. Conversion engine 105 may convert a transfer request into a format that may be processed by bridging protocol 103.)
generating, by the DLT application by triggering execution of an instruction generation agent, a modified transfer instruction comprising an identifier of a second destination replacing the DLT-based client destination; (See at least Moiyallah, [0111-0112]; [0134] The conversion engine may be configured to locate a destination account for holding the currency on behalf of the destination digital wallet application. The destination may be specified using an email address, geographic address, phone number, name, social media account, or any other suitable identifier.)
generating, by the DLT application by triggering execution of a ledger agent, an update instruction that causes, using the second communication protocol, the one or more nodes to add a record of the transfer to the distributed ledger, thereby updating the DLT-based client destination. (See at least Moiyallah, [0052]; [0077]; The bridging protocol may record the credit and debit in one or more distributed ledgers. The bridging protocol may be further configured to record the transactional integrity associated with a transfer in the distributed ledger.)
Moiyallah does not explicitly disclose, however, Arora teaches; receiving, by the DLT application using the first communication protocol and from the application, an indication of completion of the transfer; and (See at least Arora, [0024]; [0027-0029] The processing server 102 may electronically transmit notifications to issuing institutions 114 informing them of payments made from a transaction account or to a transaction account as a result of the activity of the recipient 104.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moiyallah and include Arora’s teachings in order to provide transparent system communication.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination further disclose:
receiving, by the DLT application by triggering execution of an interfacing agent via a chat interface with a user of the client device, a user input requesting the transfer from the source to the DLT-based client destination. (See at least Moiyallah, [0160-0163]; System 400 includes digital wallet input interface 407. Interface 407 may be used to receive transfer requests from SDWA 201)
Regarding claims 5 and 16: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination further disclose:
using, by the DLT application by triggering execution of the instruction generation agent, a mapping to identify the second destination based on the identifier of the DLT -based client destination. (See at least Moiyallah, [0108]; The conversion engine may search for any repeating currency transfer patterns linking a target source digital wallet application and a target destination digital wallet application.)
Regarding claims 7 and 18: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination further disclose:
receiving, by the DLT application from the client device and using the first communication protocol, a message initiating the transfer; and (See at least Arora, [0029]; [0042] In another example, if the balance is updated to $40, both issuing institutions 114 may be notified as the second hold could be removed and the first hold updated.)
transmitting, by the DLT application, subsequent messages with the client device or a second client device using the second communication protocol. (See at least Arora [0042] The transmitting device 224 may be configured to electronically transmit data signals to recipient devices 106, which may be superimposed or otherwise encoded with balance update notifications, hold update notifications, cryptographic key data, and other data as discussed herein.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moiyallah and include Arora’s teachings in order to provide transparent system communication.
Regarding claims 9 and 20: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination further disclose:
receiving, by the DLT application from a second client device and using the first communication protocol, a second transfer instruction for a second transfer; and responsive to determining, by the DLT application by triggering execution of the conversion agent, a conversion is not required for the second transfer, (See at least Moiyallah, Fig. 8; claims 1-3)
and further responsive to receipt of a third transfer instruction matching the second transfer instruction, initiating, by the DLT application, the second transfer. (See at least Moiyallah, [0081]; [0178] The bridging protocol may record Recipient2's balance (e.g., in a distributed ledger) as being associated with the same unique identifier assigned to the currency ($10) received by Recipient! from User.)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination further disclose: transmitting, by the DLT application, the modified transfer instruction to the application using the first communication protocol, wherein the application causes the transfer based on the modified transfer instruction. (See at least Moiyallah, [0111-0112]; [0134] The conversion engine may be configured to locate a destination account for holding the currency on behalf of the destination digital wallet application. The destination may be specified using an email address, geographic address, phone number, name, social media account, or any other suitable identifier.)
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination further disclose: wherein two or more of the conversion agent, the instruction generation agent, or the ledger agent are the same agent. (See at least Moiyallah, Fig. 1; [0096])
Claim(s) 3-4, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moiyallah and Arora as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of de Vial et al. (US 2017/0330099 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 2 and 12. The combination do not explicitly disclose; however, de Vial teaches:
wherein generating the modified transfer instruction comprises: detecting, by the DLT application by triggering execution of a conflict detection agent, whether the user input contains errors; and generating, by the DLT application by triggering execution of the instruction generation agent, the modified transfer instruction responsive to the conflict detection agent determining one of: no errors are detected, or detected errors have been corrected. (See at least de Vial, [0031]; [0033]; [0039]; [0043]; [0049] the model application module 106 can be configured to apply a machine learning model to detect potential data input errors. If the likelihood of error is not greater than a threshold, then no alert is raised (block 608). However, if the likelihood of error is greater than the threshold, then a data input error alert is provided to a user (block 610).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include de Vial’s teachings in order to provide reliability and to help the system to only process correct data.
Regarding claims 4 and 15: The combination of Moiyallah, Arora and de Vial disclose the method and system of claims 3 and 14. The combination further disclose: responsive to detecting one or more errors in the user input:
requesting, by the DLT application by triggering execution of the interfacing agent via the chat interface, additional data to correct the one or more errors; and (See at least de Vial, [0033]; If any data fields appear to have been inputted incorrectly, the auditor can correct the data field or send the transaction back to the first data input user for correction.)
after receiving the additional data, generating, by the DLT application by triggering execution of the interfacing agent, the modified transfer instruction after the conflict detection agent confirms the additional data corrects the one or more errors. (See at least De Vial, [0033]; If everything appears to be correct, then the transaction can be exported for execution.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include de Vial’s teachings in order to provide reliability and to help the system to only process correct data.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moiyallah and Arora as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of de Pei et al. (US 20220318925 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination do not explicitly disclose, however, Pei teaches:
executing, by the DLT application by triggering execution of the instruction generation agent, an artificial intelligence model to identify the second destination based on the identifier of the DLT-based client destination. (See at least Pei, [0056]; [0066]; The general model (122) is a machine learning model that identifies the account identifier A (136) as corresponding to the transaction record A (125).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Pei’s teachings in order to provide an accurate method to identify the second destination.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moiyallah and Arora as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of de He et al. (US 20230359485 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 19: The combination of Moiyallah and Arora disclose the method and system of claims 1 and 12. The combination do not explicitly disclose, however, He teaches:
wherein determining that the conversion is required comprises executing, by the DLT application by triggering execution of the conversion agent, a large language model using the transfer instruction to generate an output indicating the conversion is required. (See at least He, [0011]; [0017] In this solution, the host pre-stores the mapping relationship required for the format conversion, and sends the corresponding mapping relationship to the accelerator card when determining that the format conversion is required, so that the accelerator card can perform format conversion based on the mapping relationship stored in the host.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Yoo’s teachings in order to increase processing efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chedda (US 11410164 B1): A computer-implemented method includes receiving a funds transfer request message including an amount, a sender, and a recipient; examining the funds transfer request message to identify a sending financial institution associated with the sender and a receiving financial institution associated with the recipient; and determining whether the sending financial institution and the receiving financial institution each operates a node on a permissioned distributed ledger network. The method further includes, in response to determining that the sending financial institution and the receiving financial institution each operates a node on the permissioned distributed ledger network, routing the funds transfer request message to the permissioned distributed ledger network so as to facilitate the funds transfer via digital cash states issued to the sending financial institution and the receiving financial institution in exchange for fiat currency cash. Chedda, Abs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights