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 .
Examiner notes the claims were reviewed by the business method quality assurance specialists and it was determined that a 101 should be applied to the claims. Consequently, the 112(b) rejections are restated and a 101 rejection has been applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claim amendments have fixed the 112(b) issues, but 112(b) issues remain and are presented below.
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, submitting the note embedded with the amount of digital currency, sending the note embedded with the amount of digital currency to a recipient, 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 a cause related action, and/or provides a reward to a receiving party for performing a cause related transaction” 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.
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, see MPEP 2106.05(h). 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)). 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)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "regarding the cause related action and/or transaction" in line 5 of page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “for performing a cause related action and/or provides a reward to a receiving party for performing a cause related transaction” and it is unclear if this is the same cause or a different cause as well as being indefinite if the cause is the same as previously recited in the claim.
Claims 2-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “for performing a cause related action and/or provides a reward to a receiving party for performing a cause related transaction” and it is unclear if this is the same cause or a different cause.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependency from claim 8.
Claim 14 recites “for performing a cause related action and/or provides a reward to a receiving party for performing a cause related transaction” and it is unclear if this is the same cause or a different cause.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependency from claim 14.
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
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
Prosecution Insights