DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s original application filed April 13, 2026.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claims 1-11 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 .
Divisional Application
This application is a divisional application of US Application No. 17/764,134 filed 3/25/2022, now patented (“Parent Application”). See MPEP § 201.07. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 (II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 (II)(A)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the payment processor is configured to provide a payment service for one or more clients for transactions associated with a blockchain by:
receiving a first request from a client associated with mining a transaction in a blockchain;
sending a request for a fee quote to each miner among a plurality of miners communicatively coupled to the payment processor;
obtaining a fee quote from each miner for mining the transaction as obtained fee quotes; and
providing the obtained fee quotes from the plurality of miners to the client, wherein a selected fee quote for mining the transaction is determined based on the obtained fee quotes; or
determining a selected fee quote for mining the transaction for the client based on the obtained fee quotes.
Claim 7 refers to “a first request”. However, claim 1 already introduced “a first request”. It is unclear if claim 7 refers to a different request. For purposes of examination, they are interpreted as referring to the same request. If this is the intended interpretation, claim 7 should be amended to refer to “the first request”.
Regarding claims 8-9
Claims 8-9 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-11 falls within one of the four statutory categories. Each of claims 1-9 falls within the category of process; claim 10 falls within the category of machine; and claim 11 is directed to a “computer-readable medium” and therefore falls within the category of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of soliciting and selecting competing prices. The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following bolded limitations:
A computer implemented method for processing transactions associated with a blockchain, the method implemented by one or more processors associated with a client, the client being communicatively coupled to at least one payment processor implementing a payment service for the client, the method comprising the steps of:
sending a first request to a payment processor among the at least one payment processors, the request pertaining to one or more fee quotes for mining a transaction, the transaction relating to a digital asset payment from a customer; and
responsive to receipt of one or more fee quotes from the payment processor as one or more received fee quotes, selecting a fee quote among the one or more received fee quotes.
The bolded limitations above represent a commercial interaction. They recite a process of soliciting quotes and selecting one.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are represented by the above italicized limitations.
The additional elements “computer implemented” and “the method implemented by one or more processors” constitute mere instructions to perform the method using a computer.
The additional element “for mining a transaction, the transaction relating to a digital asset payment from a customer” constitutes a mere link to a blockchain environment. The method does not improve blockchain technology or the mining of a transaction. This language constitutes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of soliciting and selecting among competing prices to a specific job type.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section.
Dependent Claims 2-9
Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-9 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 2 recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
requesting and/or processing the digital asset payment from the customer, the request associated with the selected fee quote;
sending a second request to submit to the blockchain a given transaction associated with the digital asset payment from the customer to the payment processor, the submission based on the selected fee quote for mining the given transaction; and
obtaining a transaction identifier (TxID) for a blockchain transaction corresponding to the submitted transaction.
Claim 2 adds processing a payment, which is a commercial activity. Submitting the transaction to the blockchain and obtaining a transaction identifier are further field of use limitations which constitute mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of soliciting and selecting among competing prices to mining a blockchain transaction.
Claim 3 recites:
The method of claim 2, wherein the given transaction in the second request includes a batch of multiple transactions.
This is a field of use limitation because it constitutes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of soliciting and selecting competing prices to a particular job type.
Claim 4 recites:
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
sending a status query associated with the obtained transaction identifier; and
obtaining a status result for the blockchain transaction corresponding to the transaction identifier.
Inquiring as to the status of a job is part of a commercial interaction.
Claim 5 recites:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first request and/or the status query is a HTTPS GET request, and wherein the second request is a HTTPS POST request.
This limitation is not part of the abstract idea. However, “HTTP is the foundation of data communication for the World Wide Web” (Wikipedia “HTTP” page 1). This limitation therefore constitutes a well-understood, routine, and conventional method of performing the communication which merely links the claim to the particular technological environment of the world wide web.
Claim 6 recites:
The method of claim 4, wherein data associated with the first request and/or the second request and/or the status query is provided in a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object format.
This limitation is not part of the abstract idea. However, “[i]t is a very common data format” (Wikipedia “JSON” page 1). This limitation therefore constitutes a well-understood, routine, and conventional method of formatting the data which merely links the claim to a computer environment.
Claim 7 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the payment processor is configured to provide a payment service for one or more clients for transactions associated with a blockchain by:
receiving a first request from a client associated with mining a transaction in a blockchain;
sending a request for a fee quote to each miner among a plurality of miners communicatively coupled to the payment processor;
obtaining a fee quote from each miner for mining the transaction as obtained fee quotes; and
providing the obtained fee quotes from the plurality of miners to the client, wherein a selected fee quote for mining the transaction is determined based on the obtained fee quotes; or
determining a selected fee quote for mining the transaction for the client based on the obtained fee quotes.
Claim 7 contains no method steps nor limitations which affect the claimed method steps. None of the above language is given any patentable weight.
Claim 8 recites:
The method of claim 7, wherein the step of selecting a fee quote comprises determining an average value of the obtained fee quotes and selecting a fee quote based on the determined average.
This limitation is directed towards a mental process because it merely specifies how the selecting is done.
Claim 9 recites:
The method of claim 7, wherein the step of selecting a fee quote comprises determining a maximum value of a fee quote among the obtained fee quotes and selecting a fee quote based on the maximum value.
This limitation is directed towards a mental process because it merely specifies how the selecting is done.
Claims 10-11
Claims 10-11 contain language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcalm (US 20200387943 A1) in view of Konik (US 11176506 B2).
Regarding claim 1
Montcalm teaches:
A computer implemented method for processing transactions associated with a blockchain, the method implemented by one or more processors associated with a client, the client being communicatively coupled to at least one payment processor implementing a payment service for the client, the method comprising the steps of:
sending a first request to a payment processor among the at least one payment processors, […] {Figure 1; [0051] “The system may receive a job creation request [first request] (step 502). For example, a customer, via customer system 101, may transmit the job creation request to contact center generation system”}
responsive to receipt of one or more fee quotes from the payment processor as one or more received fee quotes, selecting a fee quote among the one or more received fee quotes. {[0015] “In various embodiments, systems and methods for the generation of job-specific contact centers are disclosed. The system may enable customers to generate a contact center during a job bidding phase and/or during pendency of the job. In that regard, during the job bidding phase one or more contractors may join the generated contact center to submit bids [fee quotes] for the customer's job. In response to the customer selecting a contractor to complete the job, the customer and the selected contractor may be added to the job contact center to enable communications between the parties.”}
Montcalm does not teach, however Konik teaches:
sending a first request to a payment processor among the at least one payment processors, the request pertaining to one or more fee quotes for mining a transaction, the transaction relating to a digital asset payment from a customer; and {Claim 7 “receive a blockchain transaction, create a blockchain block based on the transaction, solicit offers from a plurality of miner devices in the blockchain network to solve the blockchain block”}
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic “job” of Montcalm with the solving of the blockchain block of Konik (mining the transaction) because Konik teaches it is desirable to solicit offers to do so, and the substitution accomplishes that in a predictable way.
Regarding claim 2
Montcalm teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
requesting and/or processing the digital asset payment from the customer, the request associated with the selected fee quote; {[0052] “The job creation request may comprise the customer identifier associated with the customer account, one or more desired contractor parameters, a job description [digital asset payment], and/or the like. For example, the customer may transmit the job creation request in order to receive bids from various contractors to complete a job.”}
sending a second request to submit to the blockchain a given transaction associated with the digital asset payment from the customer to the payment processor, the submission based on the selected fee quote for mining the given transaction; and {[0058] “The system may transmit a pending job notification to the contractor account(s) […] The pending job notification may comprise customer contact information, the desired contractor parameters, the job description, and/or the like.”}
obtaining a transaction identifier (TxID) for a blockchain transaction corresponding to the submitted transaction. {[0058] “the pending job notification may also comprise a job ID, or similar unique identifier, configured to identify the job”}
Regarding claim 3
Montcalm does not teach, however Konik teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the given transaction in the second request includes a batch of multiple transactions. {Column 4 Line 45 “The block may include multiple transactions”}
The reasons for combining Montcalm with Konik are given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4
Montcalm teaches:
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
sending a status query associated with the obtained transaction identifier; and {[0072] “The system may receive a contractor update request. […] The contractor update request may comprise a contractor message, a job status, a received payment notification, a subcontractor contact information, a contractor-defined contact workflow, and/or any other data associated with a contractor interaction with the job contact center.”}
obtaining a status result for the blockchain transaction corresponding to the transaction identifier. {[0073-0074] “The contractor message [result] may comprise a communication from the contractor to the customer. For example, the contractor may communicate with the customer via the job contact center. […] The job status may comprise data indicating the status of the job”}
Regarding claim 7
Montcalm teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the payment processor is configured to provide a payment service for one or more clients for transactions associated with a blockchain by:
Claim 7 does not state that the method further comprises the following functions of receiving, sending, obtaining, and providing/determining. Rather, claim 7 states that the payment processor is configured to perform these functions. These actions are therefore not required method steps and do not distinguish from the prior art. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, it is pointed out that these functions are taught by Montcalm and citations have been given below.
receiving a first request from a client associated with mining a transaction in a blockchain; {[0051] “The system may receive a job creation request [first request] (step 502). For example, a customer, via customer system 101, may transmit the job creation request to contact center generation system”}
sending a request for a fee quote to each miner among a plurality of miners communicatively coupled to the payment processor; {[0058] “The system may transmit a pending job notification [request for a fee quote] to the contractor [miner] account(s) (step 508) identified as matching the desired contractor parameters”; [0061] “In various embodiments, the system may transmit any number of pending job notifications”}
obtaining a fee quote from each miner for mining the transaction as obtained fee quotes; and {[0059] “The system may receive a contractor job invoice [fee quote] (step 510). For example, in response to a contractor system 105 receiving the pending job notification, a contractor may review the pending job notification. In response to the contractor deciding to submit an offer to complete the job, contractor system 105 may generate and transmit the contractor job invoice to contact center generation system 110”; [0061] “In various embodiments, the system may transmit any number of pending job notifications in step 508, and/or may receive any number of contractor job invoices”}
providing the obtained fee quotes from the plurality of miners to the client, wherein a selected fee quote for mining the transaction is determined based on the obtained fee quotes; {[0062] “The job finalization notification may be received in response to the customer accepting [determining] the contractor job invoice [fee quote] from the contractor (e.g., in response to the customer hiring the contractor to complete the job). Customer system 101 may be configured to transmit the job finalization notification to contact center generation system 110, via front end server 215. The job finalization notification may comprise data indicating the selected contractor (e.g., contractor identifier, name, etc.), a contract between the parties, terms of the job, and/or any other suitable data regarding the contractor selection.”}
or determining a selected fee quote for mining the transaction for the client based on the obtained fee quotes.
Montcalm does not teach the system determining a bid / contractor job invoice (fee quote) for the customer. However, this limitation is claimed as an alternative and therefore is not required. Additionally, in the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that this step is taught by Walker paragraph [0266] (see claim 9 below).
Regarding claims 10 and 11
Claims 10 and 11 are similar in scope to claim 1 and are treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcalm in view of Konik as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wikipedia “HTTP”.
Regarding claim 5
Montcalm in view of Konik does not teach, however “HTTP” teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first request and/or the status query is a HTTPS GET request, and wherein the second request is a HTTPS POST request. {Page 1 “HTTP is the foundation of data communication for the World Wide Web”; Page 9 “The most popular way of establishing an encrypted HTTP connection is HTTPS.”; Pages 5-6 “HTTP defines methods […] The GET method requests a representation of the specified resource. […] The POST method requests that the server accept the entity enclosed in the request as a new subordinate of the web resource identified by the URI. The data POSTed might be, for example, an annotation for existing resources; a message for a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list, or comment thread; a block of data that is the result of submitting a process; or an item to add to a database.”}
Montcalm teaches a system for soliciting bids and for hiring contractors to complete jobs, the system implemented as a server in communication with client devices over the internet ([0021] “For example, customer system 101 may comprise a web browser”). “HTTP” teaches it is the standard for web communication.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the HTTPS communication protocol in the web-based system of Montcalm because it is a well-established standard for such communication.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcalm in view of Konik as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wikipedia “JSON”.
Regarding claim 6
Montcalm in view of Konik does not teach, however “JSON” teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein data associated with the first request and/or the second request and/or the status query is provided in a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object format. {Page 1 “In computing, JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is an open-standard file format that uses human-readable text to transmit data objects consisting of attribute–value pairs and array data types (or any other serializable value). It is a very common data format, with a diverse range of applications”}
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use JSON format for exchanging messages in the system of Montcalm in view of Konik because it is a very common format.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcalm in view of Konik as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ioannou.
Regarding claim 8
Montcalm in view of Konik does not teach, however Ioannou teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the step of selecting a fee quote comprises determining an average value of the obtained fee quotes and selecting a fee quote based on the determined average. {Abstract “The major drawback of the low bid method, often used for competitive bidding in the U.S. construction industry, is the possibility of awarding a construction contract to a contractor that submits either accidentally or deliberately an unrealistically low bid price. Often, such an occurrence works to the owner’s and contractor’s detriment by promoting disputes, increased costs, and schedule delays. To address this problem, other countries have adopted the average bid method and award the contract to the contractor whose price is closest to the average of all bids submitted.”}
Montcalm teaches selecting a bid, but does not teach a particular method of selecting a specific bid. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the average contractor bid as taught by Ioannou because selecting a lower bid might tend to result in schedule delays.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcalm in view of Konik as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Walker (US 20060235793 A1).
Regarding claim 9
Montcalm in view of Konik does not teach, however Walker teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the step of selecting a fee quote comprises determining a maximum value of a fee quote among the obtained fee quotes and selecting a fee quote based on the maximum value. {[0266] “the end user instructs central controller 200 to automatically accept the lowest bid offer 165, highest bid offer 165, or any bid offer 165 that satisfies attached criteria 117 or end user profile 150.”; [0265] “A higher bid could mean that the expert is more qualified to respond or that the expert will provide a higher quality response.”}
Montcalm teaches selecting a bid, but does not teach a particular method of selecting a specific bid. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the highest contractor bid as taught by Walker because a higher bid could mean higher quality.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Schulman (US 20210326814 A1) teaches a method of soliciting quotes to complete a task:
[0094] “For example, in an instance in which a purchaser uploads a construction task, one or more contractors may view the task to provide quotes, bids, offers, or other information to the purchaser regarding completion of the task. In an instance in which a purchaser or contractor/supervisor (e.g., supervisor 110) uploads a construction task for a preexisting or ongoing construction project, one or more workers (e.g., worker 112) may view the task using an interface of system 100 in order to know what work needs to be done on the project, when, where, and in what manner. Thus, defining and uploading/publishing construction tasks may allow purchasers to solicit bids for construction tasks, may allow homeowners to instruct contractors or workers regarding tasks to be completed in ongoing projects, and may allow supervisors to instruct workers regarding tasks to be completed in ongoing projects.”
Giattina (US 10831944 B1) teaches a system for receiving bids for a project:
Column 14 Line 6 “(52) The architect 404 or owner 402 can use the system 15 (via communication mechanism 262) to share the project design and corresponding product designs and design standards with one or more contractors 406 to either receive proposals or bids from the contractor(s) 406 for building the structure or to enable a previously selected contractor 406 to start building the structure.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights