DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 5/6/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejection is stated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 8/22/2022, 8/29/2023 and 11/21/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a system and claims 10 and 19 are directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for providing a redemption amount of a reserve asset in exchange for an amount of stablecoins, which is a commercial or legal interaction, i.e. a financial transaction which is a sales activity and behavior, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, in bold below, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. A system for implementing an algorithmic market maker, the system including a non- transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions thereon such that when the instructions are executed, the system is configured to:
receive a transaction including a request to redeem an amount of stablecoins for a reserve asset;
retrieve initial states of a current block of a blockchain;
determine a region on a curve function associating the stablecoin and the reserve asset, the curve function including at least two regions;
determine an anchor reserve value based at least in part on the determined region; and
provide a redemption amount of the reserve asset in exchange for the amount of stablecoins in the request based at least in part on the anchor reserve value.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “system including a non- transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions thereon such that when the instructions are executed” and “blockchain” in claim 1, “a blockchain of the blockchain system” in claim 10 and “a peer-to-peer public blockchain system” in claim 19, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Furthermore, the “determining…..” steps in claims 1, 10 and 19 are claimed at a very high level of generality such that, but for the nominal recitation of any generic computing elements, can be completed mentally through observation and evaluation. Thus, claims 1, 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed with blockchain technology communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of receive, retrieve, determine, determine and provide. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIG.1, paragraphs [0024-0026] and [0074-0075] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1, 10 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network within a blockchain network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1, 10 and 19 are not patent eligible.
For instance, in the system performing the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements within a blockchain network to perform the abstract idea of providing a redemption amount of a reserve asset in exchange for an amount of stablecoins, i.e. a financial transaction, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2 and 11 recite that the mathematical representation, i.e. display of information, is a two or three dimensional curve function which further refines the abstract idea. Displaying a result of a mathematical evaluation in the form of a curve, either two or three dimensional, is an abstract idea. Claims 3 and 12 further refine the abstract idea by listing data/information stored in a block of a blockchain network to be used in the abstract idea. Applying the storage of data/information within a block of a blockchain is merely leveraging a blockchain as a ledger, i.e. database, for storing information with nothing significantly more. Claims 4 and 13 further refine the abstract idea by defining, at a very high level of generality, the total reserve value and that the stablecoin supply is based at least in part on minting. There are no technical implementation details such that minting is anything other than what is known in the art. Claims 5 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by merely describing the two regions of the mathematical function representation as having a mathematical relationship with nothing significantly more. Claims 6 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by describing, at a very high level of generality, how the parameters are based on a value and are points representing a shape of a curve function, i.e. a mathematical representation of data. Further, the parameters include a decay slope, a point of deviation from a value and a point where the curve stops decaying, i.e. all values determining a mathematical relationship to be displayed. This is describing a mathematical relationship with nothing significantly more. Claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 further refine the mathematical relationship by stating, at a very high level of generality, that there are bounded values for the decay slope and the point of curve deviation. This is merely describing further mathematical relationships applied to the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 18 further refine the mathematical representation, i.e. display, of the two regions with nothing significantly more. Claim 20 further refines the abstract idea by further reciting that the transaction produces new values merely describing locations, i.e. points, on the mathematical function.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for providing a redemption amount of a reserve asset in exchange for an amount of stablecoins) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating within a blockchain network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for a series of steps for providing a redemption amount of a reserve asset in exchange for an amount of stablecoins) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693