DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 1/9/2026.
Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) that were filed on 1/9/2026 have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant argues that the obviousness-type double patenting rejection is moot in light of the claim amendments. However the examiner respectfully disagrees. US Patent No. 11475442 claims a similar invention and includes many of the same limitations claimed in this pending application. US 20200007544 A1 (“Wang”) discloses the generation of smart contracts to determine whether transaction requests are authorized based on an authorized private key and newly added reference US 2019/0220836 A1 (“Caldwell”) discloses the newly added limitation of destroying/burning a first amount of tokens.
101
The applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically the applicant argues “no mathematical concepts are recited or claimed. Second, the claims recite the performance of operations by nodes of physically remote computer systems, where those operations are associated with the computer-centric problem of unit management on a blockchain, and the operations recite a computer centric solution for such unit management that culminates with the broadcasting of commands to nodes of the blockchain. It would be physically impossible for a human to act as a node of physically remote computing systems. Second, the innovation is in the field of not just the use of blockchain, but the physical management of the recited blockchain and the storage of digital asset units. Again, human beings are not capable of performing operations in this computer-centric environment. The entire premise of such blockchain-related operations is that human beings cannot perform the operations and thus cannot cause errors or alterations to the blockchain” and “the amended claims now recite the explicit and specific generation of smart contracts that automatically execute when predefined parameters are met such that human intervention (and error) is not introduced into the computer-centric environment of the blockchain at issue. This not only streamlines the execution process recite dint eh claims, but also increases security of the computer-centric environment by removing the possibility of human error that may exist without the recited smart contracts”. Further the applicant argues that the claims illustrate a computer-centric solution to a computer-centric problem and recite multiple technological improvements to computer-centric technologies because the claims recite novel functionality specific to nodes of physically remote computing systems associated with the blockchain which include the ability to perform the recited operations on the fly in a time-sensitive manner (see pages 13-15 of applicant’s arguments). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of creating a contract which authorizes a request for removing an amount of an asset from a total supply of the asset. This is achieved by creating a first contract used to determine whether transactions requests are authorized; receiving a first transaction request to remove a first amount of the asset from a balance account; determining that the first transaction request is authorized based at least in part on the first contract; obtaining a second amount of the asset that reflects a current balance of the asset in a balance account; determining that the first amount of the asset is less than or equal to the second amount of the asset; based on the first amount of the asset being less than or equal to the second amount of the asset, setting a new balance for the asset to a third amount that equals the second amount less the first amount; obtaining a total supply of the asset in circulation; setting the total supply of the asset in circulation to a fourth amount that is the total supply of the asset in circulation less the first amount; and destroying the first amount of the digital asset tokens. These steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or pen and paper using math. The use of a computer/processor to perform this abstract idea is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the use of the blockchain and smart contract is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Instead the abstract idea, as stated above, is being performed in the technological environment of the blockchain which uses smart contracts. The computer/processor and blockchain functionality are not being improved.
Further the applicant argues that the claims recite a technological improvement in the specification and the claims similar to a recent Appeals Review Panel decision dated September 26, 2025 (Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567) (see applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 15 and 16). However the examiner respectfully disagrees. The decision by the board was specific to the claims at the time the application was filed. In Ex Parle Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567, the board determined that the claims recited subject matter that provided technical improvements over conventional systems by addressing challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training. This improvement was captured in the claims as well as the specification in paragraph 21 which recited "the training strategy allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, directly addressing the technical problem of 'catastrophic forgetting' in continual learning systems". Unlike the claims in this decision, there are no additional elements that provide a technical improvement to continual learning and training model efficiency or to any other technology or technical field as stated above.
Furthermore the applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of features and so recite an inventive concept and specific technical solution. Further the applicant argues that the office has not established that the applicant’s claim elements constitute “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” as required by the April 2018 Memo (see applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 16 and 17). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of the processors, computer systems, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are nothing more than tools that perform the abstract idea. These computers perform generic computer functions such as receiving, determining, executing call requests, and sending instructions. Further the use of the blockchain nodes and smart contracts is generally linking the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of blockchain networks. The use of the blockchain has traditionally been used as a ledger for digital asset tokens and traditionally use smart contracts to automate, secure, and decentralize the execution of agreements on the blockchain. Therefore the claims do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Performing the abstract idea using computers and nodes of a blockchain does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The examiner has considered all of the applicant’s arguments but maintains the 101 rejection.
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.
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: “destroying, via a destroy token component, the first amount of the digital asset tokens…” in claims 1, 8, and 16.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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, claims 1-7 and 16-20 are directed to a method and claims 8-15 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites creating a contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized and reducing/destroying the amount of digital asset tokens in circulation based on a request that is authorized with respect to the contract. Specifically, the claim recites “generating a data object representing a first… contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized in association with a token issuer system…; receiving… a first transaction request to remove a first amount of digital asset tokens from a balance account, wherein the first transaction request is… signed…; determining that the first transaction request is authorized based at least in part on… satisfying the parameter of the first… contract; causing execution… based on the first… contract authorizing the first transaction request, of a first call request to obtain a second amount of digital asset tokens that reflect a current balance of digital asset tokens in the balance account; determining that the first amount of digital asset tokens is less than or equal to the second amount of digital asset tokens; based at least in part on the first amount of digital asset tokens being less than or equal to the second amount of digital asset tokens, causing execution… of a second call request to set a new balance for the digital asset tokens to a third amount that equals the second amount less the first amount; causing execution… of a third call request to obtain a total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation; sending instructions… to set the total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation to a fourth amount that is the total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation less the first amount; and destroying… the first amount of the digital asset tokens such that the first amount of the digital asset tokens can no longer be utilized and token storage is decreased based on destruction of the first amount of the digital asset tokens”, which is grouped within the “mathematical concepts”, “mental processes”, and certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve creating a contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized and reducing/destroying the amount of digital asset tokens in circulation based on a request that is authorized with respect to the contract, which falls under the category of mathematical calculations, concepts performed in the human mind, and agreements in the form of contracts. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP § 2106.04(a)). Claim 8 is directed to a system that performs the same functions of claim 1 and claim 16 is directed to a method that performs the same steps of claim 1. Therefore Claims 8 and 16 are also directed to the abstract idea of creating a contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized and reducing/destroying the amount of digital asset tokens in circulation based on a request that is authorized with respect to the contract.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional element(s) of claims 1, 9, and 16, such as the use of the token issuer system, blockchain, geographically distributed computer systems associated with the blockchain, one or more processors, destroy token component, and non-transitory computer-readable media, merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the token issuer system, blockchain, geographically distributed computer systems associated with the blockchain, one or more processors, destroy token component, and non-transitory computer-readable media perform(s) the steps or functions of creating a contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized and reducing/destroying the amount of digital asset tokens in circulation based on a request that is authorized with respect to the contract. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Further, “the data object representing the first smart contract saved as part of the blockchain, and the data object configured to be executed automatically without human intervention when a parameter of the first smart contract is satisfied”, “the first transaction request is digitally signed by an authorized private key associated with the first smart contract”, and “causing execution, automatically via geographically distributed computer systems associated with the blockchain” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. blockchain) or field of use. Furthermore, claims 16 recites the use of a first designated key pair, distributed public address, and distributed public transaction ledger which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. blockchain) or field of use. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea 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) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a the token issuer system, blockchain, geographically distributed computer systems associated with the blockchain, one or more processors, destroy token component, and non-transitory computer-readable media to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of creating a contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized and reducing/destroying the amount of digital asset tokens in circulation based on a request that is authorized with respect to the contract. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the token issuer system, blockchain, geographically distributed computer systems associated with the blockchain, one or more processors, destroy token component, and non-transitory computer-readable media perform(s) the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of creating a contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized and reducing/destroying the amount of digital asset tokens in circulation based on a request that is authorized with respect to the contract. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Further, “the data object representing the first smart contract saved as part of the blockchain, and the data object configured to be executed automatically without human intervention when a parameter of the first smart contract is satisfied”, “the first transaction request is digitally signed by an authorized private key associated with the first smart contract”, and “causing execution, automatically via geographically distributed computer systems associated with the blockchain” are recited at a high level and are used for generally linking the use of the judicial exception (e.g. creating a contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized and reducing/destroying the amount of digital asset tokens in circulation based on a request that is authorized with respect to the contract) to a particular technological environment (e.g. blockchain) or field of use and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Furthermore, claims 16 recites the use of a first designated key pair, distributed public address, and distributed public transaction ledger which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. blockchain) or field of use. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 further describe the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 10 further describe a first and second designated key pair that are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the blockchain; claims 3-7, 11-5, and 17 recite the use of smart contract instructions and their intended use that are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the blockchain; claim 9 recites the abstract idea of causing the first smart contract to execute based at least in part on receiving the first transaction request. The use of the geographically distributed computer systems to perform the abstract idea is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally links the abstract idea to the blockchain; claim 18 recites the execution of smart contract instructions which is generally linking the judicial exception to the blockchain; claim 19 recites the abstract idea of authorizing the first transaction using public/private keys and addresses which is generally linking the judicial exception to the blockchain; claim 20 recites the abstract idea of sending a response to the first transaction request which indicates that the first transaction request has been accepted and the total supply of digital asset tokens has been set to a new amount. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting since it is claiming the same system and method as that claimed in US Patent No. 11475442 in further view of US 20200007544 A1 (“Wang”) and US 2019/0220836 A1 (Caldwell). Independent claim 1 of US Patent No. 11475442 disclose a similar invention as independent claims 1, 8, and 16 of this pending application. Similarly multiple dependent claims of application 15079134 disclose similar limitations of the dependent claims of this pending application. Independent claim 1 of US Patent No. 11475442 recites “providing a first designated key pair, including a first designated public key and a corresponding first designated private key, wherein the first designated public key also corresponds to a first designated public address associated with an underlying digital asset, wherein the underlying digital asset is maintained on a distributed public transaction ledger maintained in the form of a blockchain by a plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in a peer-to-peer network in the form of a blockchain network; receiving, by the plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in the peer- to-peer network, from a token issuer computer system, via the blockchain, a first transaction request: (A) from the first designated public address; (B) to the fourth contract address; and (C) including a second message including a request to burn a first amount of digital asset tokens from a balance associated with a third designated public address, wherein the first transaction request is digitally signed by the first designated private key; wherein the fourth smart contract executes, via the plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in the peer-to-peer network, the first transaction request to execute, via the plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in the peer-to-peer network, a first call request to the fifth contract address to obtain a second amount of digital asset tokens which reflect a current balance of digital asset tokens associated with the third designated public address; wherein, in response to the first call request, the fifth smart contract executes, via the plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in the peer-to-peer network, a second call request to return the second amount of digital asset tokens; wherein, in response to the return of the second amount of digital asset tokens, the fourth smart contract executes, via the plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in the peer-to-peer network: (1) a balance verification instruction to confirm that the first amount of digital asset tokens is less than or equal to the second amount of digital asset tokens; and (2) in the case where the first amount of digital asset tokens is less than or equal to the second amount of digital asset tokens, execute, via the plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in the peer-to-peer network, a third call request to the fifth contract address to set a new balance for the digital asset tokens associated with the first designated public address to a third amount which equals the second amount less the first amount” which reads on Independent claims 1, 8, and 16 of this pending application.
US Patent No. 11475442 does not specifically disclose “generating a data object representing a first smart contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized in association with a token issuer system, the data object representing the first smart contract saved as part of a blockchain, and the data object configured to be executed automatically without human intervention when a parameter of the first smart contract is satisfied”, “determining that the first transaction request is authorized based at least in part on the authorized private key satisfying the parameter of the first smart contract”, and destroying, via a destroy token component, the first amount of the digital asset tokens such that the first amount of the digital asset tokens can no longer be utilized and token storage is decreased based on destruction of the first amount of the digital asset”.
However Wang, in analogous art of blockchain smart contracts, discloses “generating a data object representing a first smart contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized in association with a token issuer system, the data object representing the first smart contract saved as part of a blockchain, and the data object configured to be executed automatically without human intervention when a parameter of the first smart contract is satisfied” and “determining that the first transaction request is authorized based at least in part on the authorized private key satisfying the parameter of the first smart contract” in sections [0008] and [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smart contracts of US Patent No. 11475442 to include a call rule for authorizing a transaction request based on a private key, as taught by Wang, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the security of the smart contract execution.
US Patent No. 11475442 in view of Wang does not specifically disclose “destroying, via a destroy token component, the first amount of the digital asset tokens such that the first amount of the digital asset tokens can no longer be utilized and token storage is decreased based on destruction of the first amount of the digital asset”.
However Caldwell, in analogous art of blockchain smart contracts, discloses “destroying, via a destroy token component, the first amount of the digital asset tokens such that the first amount of the digital asset tokens can no longer be utilized and token storage is decreased based on destruction of the first amount of the digital asset” in section [0268].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smart contracts of US Patent No. 11475442 to include a destroy/burn function for the digital asset tokens, as taught by Caldwell, in order to achieve the predictable result of creating price stability and a deflationary mechanism which increases investor confidence.
Novel/Non-obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over the prior art:
The instant claims include generating a data object representing a first smart contract used to determine whether transaction requests are authorized in association with a token issuer system, the data object representing the first smart contract saved as part of a blockchain, and the data object configured to be executed automatically without human intervention when a parameter of the first smart contract is satisfied; receiving, from the token issuer system and utilizing the blockchain, a first transaction request to remove a first amount of digital asset tokens from a balance account, wherein the first transaction request is digitally signed by an authorized private key associated with the first smart contract; determining that the first transaction request is authorized based at least in part on the authorized private key satisfying the parameter of the first smart contract; causing execution, automatically via geographically distributed computer systems associated with the blockchain and based on the first smart contract authorizing the first transaction request, of a first call request to obtain a second amount of digital asset tokens that reflect a current balance of digital asset tokens in the balance account; determining that the first amount of digital asset tokens is less than or equal to the second amount of digital asset tokens; based at least in part on the first amount of digital asset tokens being less than or equal to the second amount of digital asset tokens, causing execution, via the geographically distributed computer systems, of a second call request to set a new balance for the digital asset tokens to a third amount that equals the second amount less the first amount; causing execution, via the geographically distributed computer systems, of a third call request to obtain a total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation; sending instructions to cause the blockchain to set the total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation to a fourth amount that is the total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation less the first amount; and destroying, via a destroy token component, the first amount of the digital asset tokens such that the first amount of the digital asset tokens can no longer be utilized and token storage is decreased based on destruction of the first amount of the digital asset tokens.
US 20190220836 A1 to Caldwell teaches a system and method that calls blockchain smart contracts to burn a specified amount of tokens from a wallet address and then then deducts the specified amount of tokens from the total supply of available tokens. US 20190050884 A1 to Nelsen teaches a system and method that uses a buyback and burn function to reduce the total supply of crypto tokens over time. US 20200202311 A1 to Allen teaches a system and method that converts utility tokens to reserve tokens and reduces the number of utility tokens paid to miners which reduces the total supply of digital coins. US 20200027067 A1 to Hertzog teaches a system and method that calls smart contracts to execute a transaction that determines a price of a cryptocurrency token based on the total supply of the cryptocurrency token.
US 20200007544 A1 to Wang teaches a system and method that uses a smart contract to authorize a transaction request based on an authorized private key. The cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach the specific technique of authorizing a request to remove a first amount of digital asset tokens from a balance account based on satisfying a parameter of a first smart contract, executing a first call request to obtain a second amount of digital asset tokens that reflect a current balance of digital asset tokens in the balance account, determining that the first amount of digital asset tokens is less than or equal to the second amount of digital asset tokens, causing execution of a second call request to set a new balance for the digital asset tokens to a third amount that equals the second amount less the first amount, causing execution of a third call request to obtain a total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation, and sending instructions to cause the blockchain to set the total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation to a fourth amount that is the total supply of digital asset tokens in circulation less the first amount in combination with the rest of the limitations.
Conclusion
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY SAX whose telephone number is 571-272-2935. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575.
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.
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.
/TPS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698