Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 14-15 that the claims are not directed to creating or transmitting a currency. The Examiner disagrees because the amendments do not alter the step 2A prong one analysis that the claims are directed to creating a financial instrument. Applicant argues on page 15 that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees because the claims are using the recited additional elements of the distributed ledger to apply the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Applicant argues on pages 15-16 that the claims contain significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees because the ordered combination does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea when the additional elements merely recite instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and mere data gathering and out recited at a high level are insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering and output. Additionally, executing the code with at least one processor amounts to confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (distributed ledgers using smart contracts) and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Example 47 claim 2 is similar claim structure that can be reviewed as well as example 3 that might provide guidance to amend the claims for eligible subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 17, filed 30 July 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of 6 April 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “method executed by a distributed-ledger enabled processing platform for embedding enforceable conditional cryptocurrency into socially shareable multimedia notes to create an ethical cryptocurrency”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “creating a financial instrument” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (creating a financial instrument is a fundamental economic practice such as minting bills or coins), commercial or legal interaction including agreements and business relations (creating a financial instrument is a legal contract and a form of sales activities and business relations) and managing personal behavior (ear-marking or restricting the use of a financial instrument for a particular purpose can be considered managing personal behavior because the user would be forced to follow rules of the instrument and adjust personal behavior according to the prescribed conditions)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites creating a note, embedding smart contract constraints in an amount of digital currency, embedding the amount of digital currency in the note, receiving transaction data identifying the note, the defined amount of digital currency, a recipient device, and at least one cause-related activity, preventing submission of the note and preventing utilization of the currency when the transaction data fails to satisfy the constraints, submitting the note embedded with the amount of digital currency, sending the note embedded with the amount of digital currency to a recipient, appending a transaction record, updating a currency account record, wherein the currency is inseparably composed of the currency, the embedded smart contract constraints, and the note, and wherein the smart contract constraints of the currency comprise an embedded condition and action procedures. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claims additionally recite “wherein a combination of elements within the currency provides conditional rewards for verified service action, social impact behavior, or purpose-driven transactions that meet defined criteria, and wherein the combination of the amount of digital currency, the smart contract constraints, and the note of the cryptocurrency provides a receiving party an award for useful service, provides promotion for useful service, provides a reward to a receiving party for performing the cause-related activity” are an additional abstract idea of providing a reward, which can be a thank you note, reward points, or various other rewards, all of which are an abstract concept similar to currency. The combination of multiple abstract ideas does not render the combined abstract ideas less abstract, see ReCogni Corp v Nintendo LLC and for the purposes of step 2A prong two the judicial exception will be considered as a certain method of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as at least one processor, a distributed ledger enabled processing platform, a user device, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of creating a financial instrument including the utilization of the currency based on the embedded condition and implementation of the action procedures. The financial instrument being a digital asset is considered an additional element which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the digital asset is generally linking the use of creating a financial instrument to a particular technological environment, that of blockchain or distributed ledgers and smart contracts, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements of “wherein the smart contract constraints are stored …”, “executing the computer-executable condition data…”, “executing the computer-executable action-procedure data…”, “wherein the smart contract constraints define …”, “wherein the at least one processor controls …”, and “wherein the at least one processor controls implementation…” are similar to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The limitations of executing the code are mere apply it language that implements the abstract idea on a computer (using a processor), see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, generating social messaging regarding the digital currency and/or the note is extra solution activity see MPEP 2106.05(g).
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of creating a financial instrument using computer technology (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). The additional elements of “wherein the smart contract constraints are stored …”, “executing the computer-executable condition data…”, “executing the computer-executable action-procedure data…”, “wherein the smart contract constraints define …”, “wherein the at least one processor controls …”, and “wherein the at least one processor controls implementation…” are similar to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The limitations of executing the code are mere apply it language that implements the abstract idea on a computer (using a processor), see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, generating social messaging regarding the digital currency and/or the note is extra solution activity see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2 and 9 recite “the digital asset cannot be submitted when the digital currency comprising the smart contract constraints is not embedded in the note or when the note is not embedded in the digital asset comprising the smart contract constraints” which are aspects of the financial instrument and an aspect of the abstract idea. Claims 3, 10, 15 recite “wherein the note comprises content including at least on of text, a background image, a background photograph, a selfie, and/or a video” which is extra solution activity because it does not affect the function of the financial instrument nor the functioning of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 4, 11, 16 recite “creating a marketplace for exchange and ensuring the digital asset is exchanged in accordance with the smart contract constraints, wherein the marketplace and/or eCommerce infrastructure are configured to control, facilitate, and manage transactions of the digital assets” are extra solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 5, 6, 12, and 17-18 recited controlling an investing in the digital asset through investment accounts is post-solution activity that is subsequent and separate from the abstract idea of creating a financial instrument (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as well as managing borrowing and lending of the digital asset, which is a post solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 7, 13, and 19 recite generating social platform messages reporting to a social platform historical transaction information regarding the digital asset for display in a receiving party’s feed, which is considered post solution activity similar to outputting results of an analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as implementing on a server that generates a web portal are considered reciting generic computer hardware at a high level and the web portal is not positively recited as well as being software that is generic and recited at a high level, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 20 recites receiving transaction information from a certain source such as a POS or servers, which is considered pre-solution activity as the source of the information is not positively recited see MPEP 2106.05(g) and is not limiting as well as merely using the computer hardware as a tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Opeola US 2020/0005293 Jones US 2018/0357715 Toomer US 2009/0094134 Allmen US 2015/0348017
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
