DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendments and response filed on 3/2/26 and IDS filed on 12/24/25. Claims 1, 11 and 21 were amended. Claims 1-30 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/24/25. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
101: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
pp. 15-21, prong 1, Step 2A.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites “convert the micro-digital asset set in the digital asset repository into a redeemable digital asset”, conversion of an asset to a “redeemable” asset explicitly discloses a financial transaction within organizing human activity. The other limitations disclosed by the Applicant such as “execut[ing]” instructions for the “smart contract” and “modifying a rate of storage” are additional elements that are not analyzed in prong one of the two step subject matter eligibility test.
pp. 22-26, prong 2, step 2A.
The Applicant argues that the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner disagrees.
“modify a rate of storage of digital assets into the digital asset repository responsive to a determination that a rate of candidate transaction data structures being added to the distributed ledger exceeds a defined threshold value” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “a rate of storage of digital assets into the digital asset repository” is modified, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). “a determination that a rate of candidate transaction data structures being added to the distributed ledger exceeds a defined threshold value” is not technological details about “modify[ing] a rate of storage of digital assets” but merely further describes use of the “blockchain” (e.g.: distributed storage) with transaction information.
The Applicant also argues that “via (i) a network address associated with [the redeemable] digital [asset] and (ii) a digital asset repository interaction vector interface element of the user interface that enables one or more actions with respect to the digital asset repository to access the redeemable digital asset or remove the redeemable digital asset from the digital asset repository” integrate conversion step into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As such, the additional elements merely use technology such as a network address, user interface to interact with the redeemable asset which merely improves a business process, but does not improve technology.
Next the Applicant argues that “modify a rate of storage of digital assets” is analogous to network traffic monitoring and as such integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees. “modify a rate of storage of digital asset” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “a rate of storage of digital assets into the digital asset repository” is modified, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Similarly, with respect to “digital asset repository interaction vector interface, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “a digital asset repository interaction vector interface element of the user interface” enables “one or more actions with respect to the digital asset repository to access the redeemable digital asset or remove the redeemable digital asset from the digital asset repository”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The Applicant’s recited additional elements amount to mere use of technical terms without providing technological details of how the technical terms accomplish a solution to the problem.
p. 26, Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset conversion transaction.
Therefore, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claims 1-10), a process (claims 11-20) and an article of manufacture (claims 21-30). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 (from claims 1, 11 and 21) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of asset conversion transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
An apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to:
configure a digital asset repository with a predefined digital asset threshold based at least in part on one or more event objectives for a smart contract of a distributed ledger;
monitor an event stream associated with one or more events triggered by a user computing device interacting with one or more application components of a server framework via a network;
detect, based at least in part on the event stream, a candidate transaction associated with one or more interactions performed by the user computing device with respect to the one or more application components;
determine one or more candidate transaction attributes associated with the one or more interactions;
apply one or more weights to the one or more candidate transaction attributes based at least in part on the one or more event objectives for the smart contract to generate one or more weighted candidate transaction attributes associated with the one or more interactions;
generate a candidate transaction data structure for the candidate transaction in accordance with the one or more weighted candidate transaction attributes;
execute a set of instructions for the smart contract located at a defined network node of the distributed ledger to cause a comparison between the one or more candidate transaction attributes and smart contract rules for the smart contract;
add the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger in accordance with a distributed ledger consensus protocol based at least in part on the comparison between the one or more candidate transaction attributes and the smart contract rules for the smart contract, wherein adding the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger results in an increase of a total micro-digital asset count that (i) comprises a particular micro-digital asset count value configured based at least in part on one or more events with respect to the server framework, (ii) is stored in a digital asset repository, and (iii) digitally represents behavior of the user computing device with respect to the server framework;
modify a rate of storage of digital assets into the digital asset repository responsive to a determination that a rate of candidate transaction data structures being added to the distributed ledger exceeds a defined threshold value;
initiate a rendering of a visualization associated with a micro-digital asset set in the digital asset repository via a user interface of the user computing device;
based at least in part on the total micro-digital asset count for user computing device satisfying the predefined digital asset threshold, convert the micro-digital asset set in the digital asset repository into a redeemable digital asset that is authorized for manipulation by the user computing device via (i) a network address associated with the redeemable digital asset and (ii) a digital asset repository interaction vector interface element of the user interface that enables one or more actions with respect to the digital asset repository to access the redeemable digital asset or remove the redeemable digital asset from the digital asset repository.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“An apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to” and “configure a digital asset repository with [a predefined] digital [asset threshold based at least in part on one or more event objectives] for a smart contract of a distributed ledger”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“monitor an event stream […] triggered by a user computing device interacting with one or more application components of a server framework via a network”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“generate a candidate transaction data structure […]” and “execute a set of instructions for the smart contract located at a defined network node of the distributed ledger to cause […] for the smart contract”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“add the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger in accordance with a distributed ledger consensus protocol […] for the smart contract, wherein adding the candidate transaction data structure to the distributed ledger results in an increase of a total micro-digital asset count that (i) comprises a particular micro-digital asset count value configured based at least in part on one or more events with respect to the server framework, (ii) is stored in a digital asset repository, and (iii) digitally represents behavior of the user computing device with respect to the server framework. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“modify a rate of storage of digital assets into the digital asset repository responsive to a determination that a rate of candidate transaction data structures being added to the distributed ledger exceeds a defined threshold value”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “a rate of storage of digital assets into the digital asset repository” is modified, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“initiate a rendering of a visualization associated with a micro-digital asset set in the digital asset repository via a user interface of the user computing device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[…, convert … that is authorized for manipulation] by the user computing device via (i) a network address associated with [] digital [] and (ii) a digital asset repository interaction vector interface element of the user interface that enables one or more actions with respect to the digital asset repository to access the redeemable digital asset or remove the redeemable digital asset from the digital asset repository”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “a digital asset repository interaction vector interface element of the user interface” enables “one or more actions with respect to the digital asset repository to access the redeemable digital asset or remove the redeemable digital asset from the digital asset repository”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset conversion transaction.
In the instant claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus, claims 11-20 are directed to a process and claims 21-30 are directed to an article of manufacture (per para. 27 of the specification which defines “computer-readable storage medium” as “a non-transitory, physical or tangible storage medium”).
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 recite additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Reference made of record, but not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, includes US 20190196833 A1 (Bouzguarrou) disclosing data processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights