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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16, 25, and 35 are canceled.
Claims 17-21, 23-24, 26-28, 32-34, and 38 are amended.
Claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Priority
Remark 1: Applicant contends that the amended claim language is reverted to the 2006 application, 11/467,931, and is believed to also find support in the 2005 Provisional 60/723,339.
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Support continues to not be found. Pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application have an effective filing date of 10/05/2017 and are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339.
Objection to Abstract/Specification/Drawings
Remark 2: Applicant contends that the inserted text on pp. 48-49 is now cancelled.
Response to Remark 2: The objection is now withdrawn, and the amendment to the specification dated 01/22/2026 entered.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) New Matter
Remark 3: Applicant contends that the claims have been amended to omit new matter.
Response to Remark 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Support continues to not be found. The rejections are maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Lack of Antecedent Basis
Remark 4: Regarding claim 17, Applicant contends the amended claim language provides adequate antecedent basis for the network state. Regarding claim 20, Applicant contends the amended claim language omitting the word "the" before "at least one physical resource" addresses the rejection.
Response to Remark 4: Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) Interpretation and associated 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Means-Plus-Function rejections
Remark 5: Regarding claim 34, Applicant contends the amendment to “at least one logically secure cryptographic module” is supported in [0293].
Response to Remark 5: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims and specification are both silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder “at least one logically secure cryptographic module” (See Pre-Grant Publication [0293]). The 112(f) interpretation and rejections are maintained. New grounds of rejection have been made for claim 24.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Remark 6: Applicant contends that they have amended the claims to employ phrases closely aligned with the specification of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/467,931, filed Aug. 29, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,874,477, issued Oct. 28, 2014, and Provisional Patent application of 60/723,339 filed Oct. 4, 2005. Therefore, given the priority claim and support for the claim language in the priority applications, the Bitcoin references are respectfully overcome.
Response to Remark 6: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application have an effective filing date of 10/05/2017 and are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 7: Applicant suggests that Examiner consider the changes in USPTO examination policy in view of Ex Parte Desjardins.
Response to Remark 7: Respectfully, USPTO examination policy did not change in view of Ex Parte Desjardins. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 8: Applicant contends that the abstract idea asserted by Examiner is a vast oversimplification that ignores the specific technological limitations recited. Applicant further provides a review of the technological landscape in 2005, as well as solving the "double-spending problem" without a trusted third party.
Response to Remark 8: Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the additional elements discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two. Moreover, pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application have an effective filing date of 10/05/2017 and are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339.
Remark 9: Applicant contends that the claims are limited to a specific implementation that improves the functioning of the computer network itself by reducing reliance on central servers and enhancing security. Further, the claimed features impose meaningful limits on the putative judicial exception, ensuring no preemption of all methods of bookkeeping.
Response to Remark 9: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 10: Applicant contends that viewed against the backdrop of 2005 (or even 2006), the claims are not an application of conventional, routine and well-known technology.
Response to Remark 10: Pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application have an effective filing date of 10/05/2017 and are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 11: Applicant contends that the assertion that the additional elements are "well-understood, routine, and conventional" is a legally deficient assertion that ignores the 2005 priority date of the application and raises a genuine dispute of material fact under Berkheimer. Applicant contends that in 2005, distributed ledgers, cryptographic cryptocurrencies, and P2P consensus protocols (like the one claimed) were not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and that Bitcoin did not exist (2008). Further, the network of nodes arranged as claimed is not a conventional, routine or well-known construct as of the priority date.
Response to Remark 11: Pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application have an effective filing date of 10/05/2017 and are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 12: Applicant contends that even if the claims were considered to be directed to an abstract idea, they are patent-eligible under Step 2B because they contain an inventive concept that transforms them into significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Response to Remark 12: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the abstract idea discussed in Step 2A, Prong One and thus do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 13: Applicant contends that regarding each dependent claim, each adds further specific, non-conventional limitations that move the invention further from any putative abstract idea and root it more deeply in a practical, technical application.
Response to Remark 13: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each dependent claim recites an abstract idea because the claims describe synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Priority
This application 15/726,031, filed 10/05/2017 claims priority to:
DIV of 14/526,117, filed 10/28/2014, which claims priority to:
CON of 11/467,931, filed 08/29/2006, which claims priority to:
Provisional 60/723,339, filed 10/04/2005
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for original claims 17-20 filed 10/05/2017 of this application, and pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application.
Applicant is contending that original claims 17-20 filed 10/05/2017 of this application, and pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application, have adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in the disclosure of the prior-filed applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339. After review of the specification, Examiner has identified paras 0047, 0145-0156, 0188, 0190, 0205, 0207, 0262, 0292-0294, 0620, 0625, 0627 of publication US20180049043A1, corresponding to the specification filed 10/05/2017, as closest to the claims, and present in the prior-filed applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339. 0047 discloses a wallet in the context of a credit card. 0145-0156, 0188, 0190, 0620, 0625 discloses game theory in the context of improving network stability. 0205 discloses a time-dependent virtual currency. 0206-0207, 0627 discloses token micropayment subject to expiration. 0262 discloses peer-to-peer network hierarchies. 0292-0294 discloses values auditable as to a chain of owners.
However, regarding original claims 17-20 filed 10/05/2017, paras 0047, 0145-0156, 0188, 0190, 0205, 0207, 0262, 0292-0294, 0620, 0625, 0627 do not disclose claimed “verify an authenticity of information defining a unit of a virtual currency having a unique index number, generated according to a cryptographic function, according to an audit trail comprising a source identifier and a chain of prior owners: and conduct a transaction based on a transfer of the unit of virtual currency through the communication port, after the authenticity is verified; and generate a control signal dependent on the conducted transaction”.
Moreover, regarding pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application, paras 0047, 0145-0156, 0188, 0190, 0205, 0207, 0262, 0292-0294, 0620, 0625, 0627 do not disclose claim 17 limitations “automatically receive a first representation of a solution of the network state communicated through the communication device, and verify a consistency of the first representation of the solution of the network state with a second representation of the solution of the network state; generate a synthetic economic value according to a distributed network protocol employing cryptographic function, and having a unique index number, ownership and authenticity of the synthetic economic value being verified according to (a) an audit trail comprising (1) a source identifier, and (2) an entire chain of prior owners of the synthetic economic value and (b) cryptographic authentication of an origin of the synthetic economic value; conduct an automated transaction based on a communication through the communication device, to transfer ownership of the synthetic economic value through the communication device, after the authenticity of the synthetic economic value is automatically verified; automatically update the entire chain of prior owners to reflect the automated transaction; and generate the control signal dependent on the conducted transaction”, claim 21 limitations “automatically receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which interfaces with a communication network; automatically verifying with at least one automated processor a state of the communication network with a determined state of the communication network of a plurality of nodes of the communication network; employing at least the unique index number, the cryptographic function, and an audit trail comprising a source identifier and an entire chain of prior owners to verify an owner, an authenticity, and lack of prior transfer of the synthetic economic value; and updating the entire chain of prior owners to reflect a transfer of the synthetic economic value based on an automated transaction” and claim 32 limitations “receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value automatically generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which communicates with a plurality of nodes of a communication network; automatically verifying according to the distributed network protocol, an owner, lack of prior transfer, and an authenticity of the synthetic economic value based on (a) the cryptographic function, (b) the index number, and (c) an authority to employ the synthetic economic value for an automated transaction by the owner, using a decentralized audit trail automatically communicated through the communication device comprising (1) a source identifier and (2) a chain of prior owners up to the owner of the synthetic economic value; and conducting the automated transaction dependent on a transfer of the synthetic economic value to a new owner, by automated communications through the communication device, after the owner, authenticity, and authority are verified, the automated transaction comprising automatically updating the audit trail to reflect the new owner”.
Accordingly, original claims 17-20 filed 10/05/2017 of this application, and pending claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 filed 01/22/2026 of this application of this application have an effective filing date of 10/05/2017 and are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications 14/526,117, 11/467,931, and 60/723,339.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) The claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding Claim 24, the term “secure cryptographic module” acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. Also, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language “generating the synthetic economic value in a …”. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Specifically, the claims and specification are both silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder “secure cryptographic module” (See Pre-Grant Publication [0293]).
Regarding Claim 34, the term “at least one logically secure cryptographic module” acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. Also, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language “… wherein the synthetic economic value is automatically produced by … over time”. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Specifically, the claims and specification are both silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder “at least one logically secure cryptographic module” (See Pre-Grant Publication [0293]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 17-20 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 21-24, 26-34 and 36-38 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 17-20:
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claim 17 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
An automated control system responsive to a control signal, comprising:
a communication device configured to communicate with a communication network comprising a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes of the communication network having a network state;
an automated processor configured to:
automatically receive a first representation of a solution of the network state communicated through the communication device, and verify a consistency of the first representation of the solution of the network state with a second representation of the solution of the network state;
generate a synthetic economic value according to a distributed network protocol employing cryptographic function, and having a unique index number, ownership and authenticity of the synthetic economic value being verified according to (a) an audit trail comprising (1) a source identifier, and (2) an entire chain of prior owners of the synthetic economic value and (b) cryptographic authentication of an origin of the synthetic economic value;
conduct an automated transaction based on a communication through the communication device, to transfer ownership of the synthetic economic value through the communication device, after the authenticity of the synthetic economic value is automatically verified;
automatically update the entire chain of prior owners to reflect the automated transaction; and
generate the control signal dependent on the conducted transaction.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the synthetic economic value has economic market value which is different from a contemporaneous economic market value of at least one other synthetic economic value.
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the automated processor is further configured to
assign a monetary value to the synthetic economic value, wherein the conducted automated transaction comprises exchanging the synthetic economic value according to the monetary value.
Claim 20 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, and competition for resource allocation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the automated processor is further configured to:
engage in a competition; and
allocate at least one physical resource in dependence on the competition and the automated transaction.
Claims 21-24 and 26-31:
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claim 21 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
A cryptographic transaction processing method, comprising:
automatically receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which interfaces with a communication network;
automatically verifying with at least one automated processor a state of the communication network with a determined state of the communication network of a plurality of nodes of the communication network;
employing at least the unique index number, the cryptographic function, and an audit trail comprising a source identifier and an entire chain of prior owners to verify an owner, an authenticity, and lack of prior transfer of the synthetic economic value; and
updating the entire chain of prior owners to reflect a transfer of the synthetic economic value based on an automated transaction.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 22 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
automatically generating a control signal dependent on the automated transaction for control of a physical resource.
Claim 23 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the automated transaction is conducted dependent on a valuation of the synthetic economic value determined through a market.
Claim 24 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
generating the synthetic economic value in a secure cryptographic module of the distributed network protocol according to the cryptographic function.
Claim 26 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
automatically transmitting information defining a previously received the synthetic economic value through the communication device;
automatically verifying an ownership, lack of prior transfer, and authenticity of the transmitted synthetic economic value, according to at least the unique index number, the cryptographic function, and an updated audit trail reflecting the automated transaction, comprising a source identifier and the updated chain of prior owners; and
conducting a second automated transaction based on an automated second transfer of ownership of the synthetic economic value through the communication device.
Claim 27 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the synthetic economic value defined according to the cryptographic function has an economic market value which is different from a contemporaneous economic market value of a second synthetic economic value defined according to the cryptographic function.
Claim 28 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
assigning a monetary value to the synthetic economic value, wherein the automated transaction comprises automatically exchanging the synthetic economic value for a monetary unit.
Claim 29 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, and competition for resource allocation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the automated transaction is dependent on a competition for allocation of at least one resource.
Claim 30 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
automatically resolving inconsistent respective solutions of the ownership and authenticity by collision sensing and an inconsistency detection and correction.
Claim 31 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
automatically verifying the solutions reported by the plurality of nodes of the communication network with respect to shared data.
Claims 32-34 and 36-38:
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claim 32 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
A cryptographic transaction processing method, comprising:
receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value automatically generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which communicates with a plurality of nodes of a communication network;
automatically verifying according to the distributed network protocol, an owner, lack of prior transfer, and an authenticity of the synthetic economic value based on (a) the cryptographic function, (b) the index number, and (c) an authority to employ the synthetic economic value for an automated transaction by the owner, using a decentralized audit trail automatically communicated through the communication device comprising (1) a source identifier and (2) a chain of prior owners up to the owner of the synthetic economic value; and
conducting the automated transaction dependent on a transfer of the synthetic economic value to a new owner, by automated communications through the communication device, after the owner, authenticity, and authority are verified, the automated transaction comprising automatically updating the audit trail to reflect the new owner.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 33 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
automatically valuing the synthetic economic value through a market of competing bidders.
Claim 34 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the synthetic economic value is automatically produced by at least one logically secure cryptographic module over time.
Claim 36 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
automatically verifying the solutions reported by the plurality of nodes of the communication network with respect to shared data.
Claim 37 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the communication network comprises a peer to peer network,
further comprising voting for an outcome by a plurality of the nodes of the peer to peer communication network.
Claim 38 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes synthetic economic value transfer transactions involving authentication, transaction validation, transaction bookkeeping, and transaction management, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication US 2018/0049043 A1 paragraphs 0067-0071, 0073, 0077, 0086-0088, 0091-0098, 0103-0107, 0110-0111, 0177-0184, 0186-0202, 0204-0218, 0287-0295, 0306, 0347, 0359, 0395-0399, 0493-0499, 0511-0512, 0522-0527, 0529-0535, 0564-0581, 0585-0598, 0614-0635). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the communication network comprises a peer to peer network with a hierarchy within the plurality of nodes,
further comprising performing a service by a node within the plurality of nodes for the owner of the synthetic economic value, in consideration of a transfer to the node of the synthetic economic value based on the automated transaction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter Added to Claims
Claim 17 recites “automatically receive a first representation of a solution of the network state communicated through the communication device, and verify a consistency of the first representation of the solution of the network state with a second representation of the solution of the network state; generate a synthetic economic value according to a distributed network protocol employing cryptographic function, and having a unique index number, ownership and authenticity of the synthetic economic value being verified according to (a) an audit trail comprising (1) a source identifier, and (2) an entire chain of prior owners of the synthetic economic value and (b) cryptographic authentication of an origin of the synthetic economic value; conduct an automated transaction based on a communication through the communication device, to transfer ownership of the synthetic economic value through the communication device, after the authenticity of the synthetic economic value is automatically verified; automatically update the entire chain of prior owners to reflect the automated transaction; and generate the control signal dependent on the conducted transaction”. However, the specification is silent with respect to the claim limitations. Pre-Grant Publication US20180049043A1 para 0047 discloses a wallet in the context of a credit card. 0145-0156, 0188, 0190, 0620, 0625 discloses game theory in the context of improving network stability. 0205 discloses a time-dependent virtual currency. 0206-0207, 0627 discloses token micropayment subject to expiration. 0262 discloses peer-to-peer network hierarchies. 0292-0294 discloses values auditable as to a chain of owners. None of these paragraphs, nor the remainder of the specification disclose the claim limitations. Therefore, new matter is added to the claims. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement, and are thus rejected on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP 2163.01 and 2163.06.
Claim 21 recites “automatically receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which interfaces with a communication network; automatically verifying with at least one automated processor a state of the communication network with a determined state of the communication network of a plurality of nodes of the communication network; employing at least the unique index number, the cryptographic function, and an audit trail comprising a source identifier and an entire chain of prior owners to verify an owner, an authenticity, and lack of prior transfer of the synthetic economic value; and updating the entire chain of prior owners to reflect a transfer of the synthetic economic value based on an automated transaction”. However, the specification is silent with respect to the claim limitations. Pre-Grant Publication US20180049043A1 para 0047 discloses a wallet in the context of a credit card. 0145-0156, 0188, 0190, 0620, 0625 discloses game theory in the context of improving network stability. 0205 discloses a time-dependent virtual currency. 0206-0207, 0627 discloses token micropayment subject to expiration. 0262 discloses peer-to-peer network hierarchies. 0292-0294 discloses values auditable as to a chain of owners. None of these paragraphs, nor the remainder of the specification disclose the claim limitations. Therefore, new matter is added to the claims. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement, and are thus rejected on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP 2163.01 and 2163.06.
Claim 32 recites “receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value automatically generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which communicates with a plurality of nodes of a communication network; automatically verifying according to the distributed network protocol, an owner, lack of prior transfer, and an authenticity of the synthetic economic value based on (a) the cryptographic function, (b) the index number, and (c) an authority to employ the synthetic economic value for an automated transaction by the owner, using a decentralized audit trail automatically communicated through the communication device comprising (1) a source identifier and (2) a chain of prior owners up to the owner of the synthetic economic value; and conducting the automated transaction dependent on a transfer of the synthetic economic value to a new owner, by automated communications through the communication device, after the owner, authenticity, and authority are verified, the automated transaction comprising automatically updating the audit trail to reflect the new owner”. However, the specification is silent with respect to the claim limitations. Pre-Grant Publication US20180049043A1 para 0047 discloses a wallet in the context of a credit card. 0145-0156, 0188, 0190, 0620, 0625 discloses game theory in the context of improving network stability. 0205 discloses a time-dependent virtual currency. 0206-0207, 0627 discloses token micropayment subject to expiration. 0262 discloses peer-to-peer network hierarchies. 0292-0294 discloses values auditable as to a chain of owners. None of these paragraphs, nor the remainder of the specification disclose the claim limitations. Therefore, new matter is added to the claims. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement, and are thus rejected on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP 2163.01 and 2163.06.
The claim limitations of claims 18-20, 22-24, 26-31, 33-34 and 36-38 also recite new matter and are rejected on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for the same reasoning as claims 17, 21 and 32. See MPEP 2163.01 and 2163.06.
Claims 18-20, 22-24, 26-31, 33-34 and 36-38 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Means-Plus-Function
Claims 24 and 34 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation (see Claim Interpretation section). A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description (see MPEP 2181(IV)). Claims 24 and 34 are found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), therefore the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Means-Plus-Function
Claims 24 and 34 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation (see Claim Interpretation section). To satisfy the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function (see MPEP 2181(III)). Here, the claims and specification are both silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholders “secure cryptographic module” and “at least one logically secure cryptographic module”. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-24, 26-34 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Mastering Bitcoin” by Andreas M. Antonopoulos (hereinafter “Mastering Bitcoin”).
Applicant contends that “The claims are interpretable as encompassing Bitcoin, Etherium, and other modern cryptocurrencies, and the Examiner is encouraged to employ a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of this assertion” (See Applicant’s Remarks data 10/29/2018). In consideration of Applicant’s remarks and the effective filing date of 10/05/2017, the claims are anticipated by Bitcoin.
Claim 17:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses:
a communication device configured to communicate with a communication network comprising a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes of the communication network having a network state; an automated processor configured to: (See at least Chapter 6 “The Bitcoin Network”)
automatically receive a first representation of a solution of the network state communicated through the communication device, and verify a consistency of the first representation of the solution of the network state with a second representation of the solution of the network state; (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
generate a synthetic economic value according to a distributed network protocol employing cryptographic function, and having a unique index number, ownership and authenticity of the synthetic economic value being verified according to (a) an audit trail comprising (1) a source identifier, and (2) an entire chain of prior owners of the synthetic economic value and (b) cryptographic authentication of an origin of the synthetic economic value; (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
conduct an automated transaction based on a communication through the communication device, to transfer ownership of the synthetic economic value through the communication device, after the authenticity of the synthetic economic value is automatically verified; (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
automatically update the entire chain of prior owners to reflect the automated transaction; and (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
generate the control signal dependent on the conducted transaction. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 18:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 17. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the synthetic economic value has economic market value which is different from a contemporaneous economic market value of at least one other synthetic economic value. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 19:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 17. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the automated processor is further configured to (See at least Chapter 6 “The Bitcoin Network”)
assign a monetary value to the synthetic economic value, wherein the conducted automated transaction comprises exchanging the synthetic economic value according to the monetary value. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 20:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 17. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the automated processor is further configured to: (See at least Chapter 6 “The Bitcoin Network”)
engage in a competition; and (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
allocate at least one physical resource in dependence on the competition and the automated transaction. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 21:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses:
automatically receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which interfaces with a communication network; (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
automatically verifying with at least one automated processor a state of the communication network with a determined state of the communication network of a plurality of nodes of the communication network; (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
employing at least the unique index number, the cryptographic function, and an audit trail comprising a source identifier and an entire chain of prior owners to verify an owner, an authenticity, and lack of prior transfer of the synthetic economic value; and (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
updating the entire chain of prior owners to reflect a transfer of the synthetic economic value based on an automated transaction. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 22:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
automatically generating a control signal dependent on the automated transaction for control of a physical resource. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 23:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the automated transaction is conducted dependent on a valuation of the synthetic economic value determined through a market. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 24:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
generating the synthetic economic value in a secure cryptographic module of the distributed network protocol according to the cryptographic function. (See at least Chapter 4 “Keys, Addresses, Wallets”)
Claim 26:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
automatically transmitting information defining a previously received the synthetic economic value through the communication device; (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
automatically verifying an ownership, lack of prior transfer, and authenticity of the transmitted synthetic economic value, according to at least the unique index number, the cryptographic function, and an updated audit trail reflecting the automated transaction, comprising a source identifier and the updated chain of prior owners; and (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
conducting a second automated transaction based on an automated second transfer of ownership of the synthetic economic value through the communication device. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 27:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the synthetic economic value defined according to the cryptographic function has an economic market value which is different from a contemporaneous economic market value of a second synthetic economic value defined according to the cryptographic function. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 28:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
assigning a monetary value to the synthetic economic value, wherein the automated transaction comprises automatically exchanging the synthetic economic value for a monetary unit. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 29:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the automated transaction is dependent on a competition for allocation of at least one resource. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 30:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
automatically resolving inconsistent respective solutions of the ownership and authenticity by collision sensing and an inconsistency detection and correction. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 31:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 21. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
automatically verifying the solutions reported by the plurality of nodes of the communication network with respect to shared data. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 32:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses:
receiving information identifying a synthetic economic value automatically generated by a distributed network protocol according to a cryptographic function and having a unique index number, through a communication device which communicates with a plurality of nodes of a communication network; (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
automatically verifying according to the distributed network protocol, an owner, lack of prior transfer, and an authenticity of the synthetic economic value based on (a) the cryptographic function, (b) the index number, and (c) an authority to employ the synthetic economic value for an automated transaction by the owner, using a decentralized audit trail automatically communicated through the communication device comprising (1) a source identifier and (2) a chain of prior owners up to the owner of the synthetic economic value; and (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
conducting the automated transaction dependent on a transfer of the synthetic economic value to a new owner, by automated communications through the communication device, after the owner, authenticity, and authority are verified, the automated transaction comprising automatically updating the audit trail to reflect the new owner. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Claim 33:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 32. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
automatically valuing the synthetic economic value through a market of competing bidders. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 34:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 32. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the synthetic economic value is automatically produced by at least one logically secure cryptographic module over time. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 36:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 32. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
automatically verifying the solutions reported by the plurality of nodes of the communication network with respect to shared data. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 37:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 32. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the communication network comprises a peer to peer network, (See at least Chapter 6 “The Bitcoin Network”)
further comprising voting for an outcome by a plurality of the nodes of the peer to peer communication network. (See at least Chapter 8 “Mining and Consensus”)
Claim 38:
Mastering Bitcoin discloses all limitations of claim 32. Mastering Bitcoin further discloses:
wherein the communication network comprises a peer to peer network with a hierarchy within the plurality of nodes, (See at least Chapter 6 “The Bitcoin Network”)
further comprising performing a service by a node within the plurality of nodes for the owner of the synthetic economic value, in consideration of a transfer to the node of the synthetic economic value based on the automated transaction. (See at least Chapter 2 "How Bitcoin Works", Chapter 5 "Transactions", Chapter 7 "The Blockchain", Chapter 8 "Mining and Consensus")
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Satoshi Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, 2010-07-04
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights