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 .
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Application 17/990,270 claims earliest priority from provisional application 63/281,072, filed 11/18/2021.
Claim 1 has been amended and claim 3 canceled.
Claims 4-6 previously canceled.
Claim 1 being independent and claims 2 and 7-11 dependent claims.
Claims 1, 2 & 7-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to individuals performing commodity trading or to a smart contract merely performing commodity trading for an individual’s account, but instead controls the underlying value of a cryptoasset by executing automated computerized trades. This argument is not persuasive because the focus of the claim, considered as a whole, remains directed to managing tokenized assets and executing financial/commodity trading activity based on pricing data, spreads, conversions, and valuation adjustments. The recited DAO smart contract set, cryptographic wallets, whitelist, blockchain-stored data structure, APIs, stablecoin conversion, fiat conversion, commodity exchange trading, and value adjustment are used to implement and enforce the financial/trading rules of the claimed system. These limitations may narrow the field of use and specify a blockchain environment, but they do not change the character of the claim from a financial trading/asset management concept into an improvement to computer or blockchain technology itself.
Applicant argues that the claimed system changes the value of the cryptoasset itself. However, the recited adjustment remains tied to financial valuation relationships and trading activity. The claim does not recite a technological mechanism that improves operation of the blockchain, wallet infrastructure, consensus process, or computer functionality. Rather, the claim modifies an economic characteristic of an asset based on trading outcomes.
Applicant further argues that the claim is rooted in blockchain technology and recites numerous blockchain-specific limitations, including a DAO smart contract set, wallet addresses, blockchain storage, whitelisting, token states, APIs, and automated smart contract operations. The Examiner acknowledges these limitations. However, merely implementing the abstract idea using blockchain components, smart contracts, wallets, APIs, and computer-executed automation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application where those components perform their ordinary functions of storing data, querying data, validating wallet addresses, recording transactions/states, receiving price data, and initiating exchanges/trades. The claim does not recite an improvement to the operation, security, speed, reliability, consensus mechanism, cryptographic processing, memory structure, or network functionality of the blockchain or computer system. Rather, the blockchain and smart contract components are used as tools to carry out the underlying financial/trading arrangement.
While the claim is implemented in a blockchain environment, implementation in a particular technological environment does not by itself integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed blockchain components perform their ordinary functions and are used as tools to implement the underlying financial concept.
Applicant’s reliance on the alleged adjustment of the “value of the cryptoasset itself” is also not persuasive. The claimed adjustment is based on market value of a traded commodity and results from financial trading and valuation rules. Thus, the limitation concerns the value relationship of financial assets, not a technical improvement to how a computer or blockchain processes, stores, transmits, or secures data. The claim may automate a particular financial strategy, but automation of financial decision-making, trading, conversion, and valuation does not amount to an improvement in computer technology. The claimed adjustment affects the economic value associated with the asset rather than the manner in which the blockchain stores, validates transmits, or processes data.
Applicant also argues that the claim covers a particular solution to a problem in a particular way, rather than merely claiming an outcome. The Examiner disagrees. While claim 1 includes additional implementation details, those details are directed to carrying out the financial/trading scheme using conventional blockchain-related components and data operations. The claim does not solve a technological problem in a blockchain technology; instead, it uses blockchain technology to solve a business/financial problem involving receipt of cryptoassets, eligibility of wallet addresses, pledged/unpledged token status, price-spread targets, conversion of assets, commodity trading, and valuation adjustment. Therefore, the additional limitations do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception in a manner that integrates it into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments based on Enfish and alleged software improvements are not persuasive. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in the way computers stored and retrieved data. Here, by contrast, the claimed smart contract set, whitelist, APIs, wallet records, and blockchain-stored data are not recited as improving the functioning of the computer or blockchain itself. They are recited as part of the mechanism for administering token transfers and trading activity. Unlike Enfish, the present claims do not improve storage, retrieval, organization, memory utilization, data base structure, network operation, or computer functionality. Instead, the claimed data structures and records are used to administer trading and valuation operation. Accordingly, the claim is distinguishable from claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality.
Applicant’s reliance on Ex Parte Desjardins has been considered. The Examiner has not disregarded the recited software limitations. Rather, the software limitations have been considered as part of the claim as a whole. Even when considered collectively, the limitations are directed to implementing the underlying financial/trading concept and do not constitute an improvement in computer functionality or blockchain technology.
Applicant argues that claim 1 improves blockchain technology and represents a technological improvement. The additional elements, including the DAO smart contract set, blockchain-stored data, wallet addresses, token-state tracking, and APIs, operate in their ordinary capacities, rather than improving blockchain operation, consensus mechanisms, cryptographic processing, data storage, network functionality, or computer performance. The Examiner does not agree that claim 1 recites an improvement to blockchain technology, computer technology, or another technical field. At most, the claim improves administration of trading and asset management activities through use of blockchain components operating in their ordinary capacities, but this is still abstract and cannot improve blockchain technology.
Applicant argues that the application of the judicial exception is particular rather than general under consideration #3 of the Memorandum. The Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 includes numerous detailed limitations directed to DAO smart contracts, whitelisted wallet addresses, token states, pricing thresholds, asset conversions, and commodity trading operations. However, these limitations define how the recited financial/trading concept is implemented and administered rather than providing a technological improvement to blockchain technology or another technical field. While the claim may be more specific than a broadly stated trading concept, the additional limitations remain directed to implementing the abstract idea in a particular environment using particular data and rules. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application merely because the implementation contains greater detail.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner should not oversimplify the claim or disregard software limitations. The Examiner has considered the claim as a whole, including the amended limitations. However, considering the claim as a whole does not require treating every computer-implemented detail as a technological improvement. The additional elements, including the DAO smart contract set, blockchain-stored data structures, whitelisted wallet addresses, token-state tracking, APIs, asset conversions, and automated trading operations, have been considered individually and as an ordered combination, to amount to applying the financial/trading concept using blockchain and smart contract technology, without reciting a specific improvement to the underlying technology. Therefore, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant also cites the “close call” guidance and argues that a rejection should not be made unless the claim is more than 50% likely ineligible. The Examiner has considered the guidance. In the present case, the rejection is maintained because when the claim is evaluated as a whole, it is more likely than not directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
For the above reasoning, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-2 & 7-11 is maintained.
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, 2 & 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without reciting significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim 1 directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, representative claim 1 recites limitations directed to managing tokenized assets and executing financial/commodity trading activity based on pricing data, price spread targets, conversions, and valuation adjustments. Such limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because they concern commercial or legal interactions, including financial activity, business relations, and managing transactions between parties. As such, the claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, recites the abstract idea through limitations including:
A trading system including:
a computerized decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) smart contract set representing one or more DAO smart contracts stored and operating, wherein the DAO smart contract set controls a DAO cryptoasset wallet,
wherein said DAO smart contract set electronically stores a whitelist representing a plurality of public token holder cryptoasset wallet addresses representing a plurality of token holders, said plurality of public token holder cryptoasset wallet addresses operating from which said DAO cryptoasset wallet is authorized to receive tokens
wherein said DAO smart contract set automatically and periodically queries and updates a blockchain-stored data section of said DAO smart contract set to match said whitelist of a plurality of public token holder cryptoasset wallet addresses,
wherein said DAO cryptoasset wallet receives a request to receive tokens to be transferred to said DAO cryptoasset wallet, said DAO smart contract set compares the public wallet address of the sender’s cryptoasset wallet to the plurality of whitelisted public wallet addresses stored in section of said DAO smart contract and only allows the transfer to occur when the public wallet address of the sender matches one of the plurality of whitelisted public wallet addresses stored in data section of said DAO smart contract set,
wherein said DAO cryptoasset wallet receives tokens form a plurality of said plurality of public wallet addresses,
wherein for each of said plurality of public wallet address that has transferred tokens to said DAO cryptoasset wallet, said DAO smart contract set automatically records the quantity of tokens that have been received from each of said plurality of public wallet addresses,
wherein the total quantity of all tokens that have been received from all public wallet addresses are associated with one of three states: a pledged quantity of cryptoassets available for use in trading by the DAO smart contract set, an unpledged quantity of cryptoassets not available for use in trading by the DAO smart contract set and available for withdrawal to the public token holder cryptoasset wallet addresses associated with said cryptoasset in said DAO smart contract set, and a pending unpledged quantity of cryptoassets not available for use in trading by the DAO smart contract set but not available for withdrawal to the public token holder cryptoasset wallet addresses associated with said cryptoasset in said DAO smart contract set,
wherein said pledged quantity of cryptoassets represents cryptoassets from a plurality of token holders,
wherein said DAO smart contract set includes storing a predetermined price spread target associated with a predetermined percentage of said pledged quantity of cryptoassets stored in said DAO cryptoasset wallet; wherein said DAO smart contract set includes receiving commodity price data for a commodity;
wherein said DAO smart contract set includes retrieving said pledged quantity of cryptoassets and receiving cryptoasset and receiving cryptoasset price data for said cryptoasset;
wherein, when the difference between said commodity price data and said cryptoasset price data exceeds said predetermined, stored price spread target, said DAO smart contract set automatically retrieves said pledged quantity of cryptoassets and automatically determines a cryptoasset quantity target by multiplying said pledged quantity of cryptoassets stored in said DAO cryptoasset wallet by said predetermined percentage,
wherein said DAO smart contract set converts said cryptoasset quantity target to a commodity quantity target based on said commodity price data,
retrieves a coin conversion cost to convert said cryptoasset to a cryptographic stablecoin,
wherein said DAO smart contract set automatically initiates computerized trading to exchange said cryptoasset quantity target of said cryptoasset for a stable coin target amount of said cryptographic stablecoin,
wherein said DAO smart contract set automatically initiates a cryptographic burn of said stablecoin target amount of said cryptographic stablecoin to generate a fiat currency target amount of a fiat currency,
wherein said DAO smart contract set automatically initiates computerized trading of said commodity based on said commodity quantity target using said fiat currency target amount, and
wherein said DAO smart contract set automatically adjusts the value of said cryptoasset based on the market value of said commodity that has been traded.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea groupings. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements, including the DAO smart contract set, blockchain-stored data section, whitelist of wallet addresses, token-state tracking, application programming interfaces (APIs), and automated conversion and trading operations, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These elements are used to implement the underlying financial/trading concept in a blockchain environment and perform conventional functions such as storing data, validating wallet addresses, tracking token quantities and states, retrieving pricing information, and initiating transactions. The claim does not recite an improvement to blockchain operations, consensus mechanisms, cryptographic processing, data storage, network functionality, computer performance, or another technical field. Rather, the blockchain-related components are used as tools to carry out the recited financial/trading activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: at least a computerized decentralized autonomous organization, application programming interface, and blockchain are recited at a high-level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Even assuming these elements are implemented with the recited specificity, they perform conventional data storage, tracking, validation, and transaction-processing functions and do not improve computer or blockchain technology.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional limitations of the additional computer elements (supra) and programmed to perform the method steps (storing, determining, converting, initiating, etc.) are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The use of generic computer components for trading commodities does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Considering claims 1-2 & 7-11 as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claim it depends on, and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea [Supra].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights