DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 11/3/2025.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 16 and 20 are canceled. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 17-19. Claims 21 and 22 are new claims. Claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments/Comments
103 Rejections
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the references may operate in different contexts, but they are similarly related in the field of managing digital assets in decentralized network.
The rest of the arguments is moot in light of a new art and new grounds of rejection due to amended claims.
101 Rejection
The improvements highlighted by the applicant are not technological improvement, but rather they are business improvements over the current process of managing/transforming financial assets, which is nothing more than a conventional financial transaction in the context of blokchain. The process appears to follow conventional transactions including asset conversion. Also, some of the improvements highlighted by Applicant are not reflected in the claim itself. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited managing commercial interaction concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int'l V. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology." MPEP 2106.05(a) (II). The rejection 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 1-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is a method claim; claim 11 is a system claim; claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage claim. Thus, independent claims 1, 11, and 19 are directed to statutory subject matter.
However, independent claims 1, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim recites: (claim 1, 11, and 19 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
receiving, via the banking transaction tool over the communication network, a user request for access to the digital asset conversion platform;
authenticating, via the communication network, user credentials in accordance with Know Your Customer;
receiving, via the banking transaction tool, a financial transaction request;
generating, by the digital asset conversion platform, a digital asset, wherein the digital asset is generated from the user conventional net asset value determined from a native fiat currency, a retirement account, real estate, a mortgage, a deed, a commodity, a mutual fund, an equity, a crypto currency, intellectual property, a non-fungible token (NFT), or combinations thereof;
receiving, via the communication network, a transaction value for the financial transaction request;
transmitting, via the communication network, the transaction value to a third party, wherein the transaction value comprises at least a portion of the digital asset;
receiving, via the communication network, a confirmation that the third party received the transaction value completing the financial transaction request;
calculating, via the digital asset conversion platform, an updated user conventional net asset value;
storing, via the communication network, a record of the financial transaction;
generating, via the communication network, a blockchain ledger of the financial transaction; and
generating, via the digital asset conversion platform, a transaction tax summary.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04, see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (issued October 17, 2019) (“2019 PEG Update”).
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing: Managing commercial interactions, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: receiving a user request for access to the digital asset conversion platform; authenticating user credentials in accordance with Know Your Customer guidelines; receiving, via the banking transaction tool, a financial transaction request; transmitting the transaction value to a third party; receiving a confirmation that the third party received the transaction value completing the financial transaction request; calculating an updated user conventional net asset value; storing a record of the financial transaction; generating a blockchain ledger of the financial transaction; and generating a transaction tax summary. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – managing commercial interactions, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04, see also 2019 PEG Update.
The recited computing elements (claim 1: processor; claim 11: a computer machine with a processor; a digital asset conversion platform; a banking transaction tool; a digital asset transaction database; a communication network; and a memory; claim 19: a non-transitory computer-readable storage device) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional positive elements are: “generating a digital asset via a digital asset conversion platform, where the digital asset is generated using a user conventional net asset value determined from a native fiat currency, a retirement account, real estate, a mortgage, a deed, a commodity, a mutual fund, an equity, a crypto currency, intellectual property, a non-fungible token (NFT), or combinations thereof” in claim 1 or 11 or 19; which amounts to linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. a computer machine with a processor; a digital asset conversion platform;
a banking transaction tool; a digital asset transaction database; a communication network; and a memory,. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 10 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 5 describes how a banking transaction tool can be accessible via a mobile phone; claim 7 describes that the transaction tax summary is stored in a blockchain; claim 8 further describes financial transaction and the transaction tax summary are stored on a digital asset transaction; claim 10 describes a liquidity pool; etc, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 9 are not directed to any additional abstract ideas but are directed to non-functional descriptive material. For example, claims 2-4 further describe what the digital asset are; claim 6 describes what the financial transaction entails; and claim 9 describes what the user net asset value are. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. The other dependent claims (claims 12-18 and 21-22), which are similar in scope to the dependent claims 2-10, are rejected for the same reason as above. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Harrison et al. (US12265953B1) in view of Saucier et al. (US20240320670A1).
With respect to claim 1, 11, and 19
Harrison teaches the limitation:
a memory, wherein the memory is in communication with the computer machine storing instructions that, when executed by the computer machine, cause the system to ():
a computer machine with a processor; a digital asset conversion platform configured to permit a financial institution to function as a digital clearing house; a banking transaction tool directly connected to the financial institution; a digital asset transaction database; a communication network communicatively coupled to the computer machine, the digital asset conversion platform, the banking transaction tool, and the digital asset transaction database (fig.27A and col.30 ln41-ln64);
receiving, via the banking transaction tool over the communication network, a user request for access to the digital asset conversion platform (col.36 ln64-ln66, In a step S4856, the exchange computer system can provide to a customer user device a fiat funding interface.);
authenticating, via the communication network, user credentials in accordance with Know Your Customer (col., In a step S4852, an exchange computer system can receive user access credentials. In a step S4854, the exchange computer system can authenticate the user by verifying the received access credentials.);
receiving, via the banking transaction tool, a financial transaction request (col.36 ln49-ln54, FIG. 30C is an exemplary schematic diagram of an exchange, and FIG. 30D is a corresponding flow chart of a process for digital asset exchange customer account fiat funding via a customer-initiated request, such as a wire transfer, in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention.);
generating, by the digital asset conversion platform, a digital asset, wherein the digital asset is generated from the user conventional net asset value determined from a native fiat currency, a retirement account, real estate, a mortgage, a deed, a commodity, a mutual fund, an equity, a crypto currency, intellectual property, a non-fungible token (NFT), or combinations thereof (col.91 ln24-ln29, The digital asset exchange, in embodiments, may convert the actual payment amount (e.g., measured in fiat) to a second amount (e.g., measured in the type of digital asset associated with the payment type) based on the obtained first conversion rate.);
receiving, via the communication network, a transaction value for the financial transaction request (col.92 ln42-ln47, In embodiments, the digital asset exchange computer system may sell the first amount of the first type of digital asset via a blockchain transaction. An exemplary process associated with selling the first amount of the first type of digital asset via a blockchain transaction may begin with step S7722B-1.);
transmitting, via the communication network, the transaction value to a third party, wherein the transaction value comprises at least a portion of the digital asset (col.92 ln47-ln51, At step S7722B-1, in embodiments, the digital asset exchange computer system may generate a first transaction request including instructions to transfer a third amount of the first type of digital asset from a first account to a second account.);
receiving, via the communication network, a confirmation that the third party received the transaction value completing the financial transaction request (col.128 ln27-ln33, In embodiments, the digital asset account funding and redemption system is configured to process funding of a digital asset account held by the exchange from an exchange customer by receiving, by the digital asset exchange computer system, an initial transfer of digital assets; receiving, by the digital asset exchange computer system, a confirmation of clearance of the digital asset transfer);
calculating, via the digital asset conversion platform, an updated user conventional net asset value (col.37 ln16-ln20, In a step S4868′, the exchange computer system can update an exchange fiat electronic ledger with the funding transaction information, which may include an amount value, customer account ID, transaction date and/or time, to name a few.);
storing, via the communication network, a record of the financial transaction (col.31 ln12-ln15, Clearing of transactions may be recorded nearly instantaneously on the electronic ledgers. Deposits of fiat with the exchange and withdrawals from the exchange may be recorded on the electronic fiat ledger.);
generating, via the communication network, a blockchain ledger of the financial transaction (col.19 ln36-ln43, These computers and/or servers can communicate over a network, such as an internet-based network, and can confirm transactions by adding them to a ledger 115, which can be updated and archived periodically using peer-to-peer file sharing technology. For example, a new ledger block could be distributed on a periodic basis, such as approximately every 10 minutes. In embodiments, the ledger may be a blockchain.);
Harrison doesn’t explicitly teach, but Saucier teaches: generating, via the digital asset conversion platform, a transaction tax summary ([0059], Some embodiments of the invention relate to methods of asset management including the steps of: providing an asset-management system comprising at least one asset-handling portal comprising scanning capability; scanning all asset items as part of a transaction, deposit, withdrawal, or any combination thereof, to record data relating to each individual asset item, wherein the data comprises data unique to each individual item; digitizing all asset items; storing the digitized asset items in a digital asset repository; recording the transaction, deposit, withdrawal, or any combination thereof; creating a digital asset inventory record treating each individual digitized asset item as a separate entry; and updating the digital asset inventory record with each transaction, deposit, withdrawal, or combination thereof; see also [0178], the cash-management system and data manager are capable of carrying out additional software functions, such as: point of sale programs, inventory management, pricing, government compliance, corporate compliance, RFID product tracking, vendor and source tracking, consumer identity, product sales volume analysis, tax calculation and remittance, real time cash on hand balancing, transaction reporting, and integration functionality with third-party software.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Harrison with the teaching of Saucier as they relate to managing digital assets in decentralized network. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Harrison, for example exchanging digital asset in a marketplace in Harrison to include the method of calculating tax summary as taught in Saucier for the predicated result of improved system of reconciling a record of transactions.
With respect to claim 2 and 12
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Harrison further teaches: wherein the digital asset comprises Bitcoin (col.20 ln51-ln53, In addition to archiving transactions, a new addition to a ledger can create or reflect creation of one or more newly minted digital assets, such as bitcoin.)
With respect to claim 3 and 13
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Harrison further teaches: wherein the digital asset comprises a cryptocurrency (col.15 ln39-ln42, a blockchain based digital asset (such as ether) is hard coded into the blockchain (e.g., the Ethereum Blockchain) itself. It is sold and traded as a cryptocurrency,)
With respect to claim 4 and 14
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Saucier further teaches: wherein the digital asset is a non-fungible token (NFT) (col.185 ln29-ln32, The digital asset token, in embodiments, may be a stable value token (such as Gemini Dollar), security tokens, and/or non-fungible token (such as Cryptokitties), to name a few.)
With respect to claim 5 and 15
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Harrison further teaches: wherein the banking transaction tool is accessible via a mobile phone (col.29 ln46-52, In embodiments, users may connect to the exchange through one or more user electronic devices 3202 (e.g., 3202-1, 3202-2, . . . , 3202-N), such as computers, laptops, tablet computers, televisions, mobile phones, smartphones, and/or PDAs, to name a few. A user electronic device 3202 may access, connect to, and/or otherwise run one or more user digital wallets 3204.)
With respect to claim 6 and 17
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Harrison further teaches: wherein the financial transaction is a credit card transaction, a debit card transaction, a mortgage related transaction, a crypto currency transaction, or other digital clearing house transaction (col.41 ln23-ln26, In embodiments, a digital asset exchange may accept payment methods (e.g., credit card transactions; Automated Clearing House (ACH) debits, wire transfers, digital asset transactions, to name a few) for purchases of digital assets.)
With respect to claim 7, 16, and 20
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1, 11, and 19 respectively. Saucier further teaches: wherein the transaction tax summary is stored in a blockchain ([0079], FIG. 11 illustrates a further exemplary embodiment of the invention wherein, as in FIG. 10 , the user inputs an asset, or some form of documentation of an asset, into the system, which stores and digitizes the asset, and provides a transaction receipt to the user, including keys allowing the user to demonstrate ownership of and access the digitized asset held by the system. The transaction can be recorded on a blockchain; see also [0178] on tax)
With respect to claim 8 and 18
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Saucier further teaches: wherein the record of the financial transaction and the transaction tax summary are stored on a digital asset transaction database (see [0027 and 0178].)
With respect to claim 9
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Harrison further teaches: wherein the user net asset value comprises a native fiat currency, a retirement account, real estate, a mortgage, a deed, a commodity, a mutual fund, an equity, a crypto currency, intellectual property, a non-fungible token (NFT), or combinations thereof (col.103 ln7-ln21 ,The dashboard GUI may present various information associated with a digital asset exchange, for example, balance information (including fiat currency balances 1202 and/or digital asset balances 1204), account value information (including present, past, and/or predicted values), historical trends, open orders, past orders, and/or user history, to name a few. Accordingly, such a dashboard interface may include account summary information, such as one or more digital asset balances 1204 and/or fiat currency (e.g., U.S. Dollar) balances 1202 associated with a particular user account or master account, which may be an umbrella account with a plurality of user sub-accounts. The dashboard interface may also include an account value 1206, which may be a sum of all digital asset balances and fiat currency balances.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Harrison et al. (US12265953B1) in view of Saucier et al. (US20240320670A1), and further in view of Lyren (US20230044461).
With respect to claim 10
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Lyren teaches: wherein a liquidity pool comprises the digital asset for use in a banking lending service in which traditional deposits are converted to digital assets for yield farming, token trading, or other financial transaction ([0085], An example embodiment of the Bob protocol differs from other decentralized exchanges that establish large liquidity pools that always have sufficient coins to loan or swap. For example, UNISWAP is an example of one such liquidity pool that utilizes an Automated Market Maker algorithm and asymptotic pricing to ensure the liquidity pool always has available assets to swap. These liquidity pools have an inherent shortcoming of price fluctuation: Users are charged different interest rates based on supply and demand. The Bob protocol avoids these price fluctuations and maintains a fixed interest rate that does not vary over time for both borrowers of USDC and Bob coin holders. For example, a first borrower borrowing USDC from the lending pool in January will pay the same fixed interest rate as a second borrower borrowing USDC from the lending pool in February - December of the same year or other months of subsequent years; see also [0050] on token trading.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Harrison/Saucier with the teaching of Lyren as they relate to managing digital assets in decentralized network. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the systems of Harrison /Saucier, for example exchanging digital asset in a marketplace in Harrison, to include a liquidity pool for the digital asset as taught in Lyren for the predicated result of improved system of reconciling a record of transactions.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Harrison et al. (US12265953B1) in view of Saucier et al. (US20240320670A1), and further in view of Lyren (US20230044461)
With respect to claim 21
The combination of Harrison, Saucier, and Lyren teaches the limitation of claim 10. Harrison further teaches:
wherein the banking transaction tool is accessible via a mobile phone (see col.29 ln46-52),
wherein the financial transaction is a credit card transaction, a debit card transaction, a mortgage related transaction, a crypto currency transaction, or other digital clearing house transaction (see col.41 ln23-ln26),
wherein the user conventional net asset value comprises a native fiat currency, a retirement account, real estate, a mortgage, a deed, a commodity, a mutual fund, an equity, a crypto currency, intellectual property, a non-fungible token (NFT), or combinations thereof (see col.103 ln7-ln21),
and further comprising transmitting the digital asset conversion platform to the user after receiving the financial transaction request (col.35 ln54-ln59, FIG. 30A is an exemplary schematic diagram of an exchange, and FIG. 30B is a corresponding flow chart of a process for digital asset exchange customer account fiat funding via an exchange-initiated request, such as ACH in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention.),
transmitting to the user the confirmation of transaction completion after receiving the confirmation from the third party (col. 128 ln33-ln38updating, by the digital asset exchange computer system, an existing customer account in the one more or more databases with the received digital assets including making an electronic entry in an exchange digital asset electronic ledger and providing a notification that digital assets are received.),
wherein the authenticating comprises verifying the identity, suitability, and risks involved with maintaining a business relationship with the user to prevent fraud and monetary obfuscation (col.32 ln23-ln37, Data can include user identification data 5110 (e.g. know your customer data obtained during the user onboarding process), user account authentication data 5112 (e.g., login credentials, multi-factor authentication data, and/or anti-money laundering verifications), account activities logs 5114, electronic ledger data 5116, fiat account balance data 5118, and/or digital wallet balance data 5120. One or more software modules may be stored in the memory and running or configured to run on the one or more processors. Such modules can include a web server module 5122, authenticator module 5124, risk management module 5126, matching engine module 5128, electronic ledger module 5130, digital wallet module 5132, and/or fiat account module 5134.),
Examiner’s Note (Intended Use): The portion of the limitation which recites “to prevent fraud and monetary” is merely a recited intended use of authentication. This portion is given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for…. [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Saucier further teaches: wherein the transaction tax summary is stored in a blockchain ([0079], FIG. 11 illustrates a further exemplary embodiment of the invention wherein, as in FIG. 10 , the user inputs an asset, or some form of documentation of an asset, into the system, which stores and digitizes the asset, and provides a transaction receipt to the user, including keys allowing the user to demonstrate ownership of and access the digitized asset held by the system. The transaction can be recorded on a blockchain; see also [0178] on tax),
wherein the record of the financial transaction and the transaction tax summary are stored on a digital asset transaction database (see [0027 and 0178].)
wherein the blockchain ledger provides an immutable record of the financial transaction to ensure trust and compliance in the merging of decentralized finance with traditional banking services ([0135], The system can record the transaction can be recorded on an immutable digital ledger (e.g., blockchain).
Examiner’s Note (Intended Use): The portion of the limitation which recites “to ensure trust and compliance in the merging of decentralized finance with traditional banking services” is merely a recited intended use of generating blockchain ledger. This portion is given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for…. [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
With respect to claim 22
The combination of Harrison and Saucier teaches the limitation of claim 18. Harrison further teaches:
wherein the digital asset comprises Bitcoin, a cryptocurrency, or a non-fungible token (NFT) (col.20 ln51-ln53, In addition to archiving transactions, a new addition to a ledger can create or reflect creation of one or more newly minted digital assets, such as bitcoin.),
wherein the banking transaction tool is accessible via a mobile phone (see col.29 ln46-52), wherein the financial transaction is a credit card transaction, a debit card transaction, a mortgage related transaction, a crypto currency transaction, or other digital clearing house transaction (see col.41 ln23-ln26),
wherein the user conventional net asset value comprises a native fiat currency, a retirement account, real estate, a mortgage, a deed, a commodity, a mutual fund, an equity, a crypto currency, intellectual property, a non-fungible token (NFT), or combinations thereof (see col.103 ln7-ln21), and wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the system to transmit the digital asset conversion platform to the user after receiving the financial transaction request (col.35 ln54-ln59, FIG. 30A is an exemplary schematic diagram of an exchange, and FIG. 30B is a corresponding flow chart of a process for digital asset exchange customer account fiat funding via an exchange-initiated request, such as ACH in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention.), transmit to the user the confirmation of transaction completion after receiving the confirmation from the third party (col. 128 ln33-ln38updating, by the digital asset exchange computer system, an existing customer account in the one more or more databases with the received digital assets including making an electronic entry in an exchange digital asset electronic ledger and providing a notification that digital assets are received.), authenticate user credentials in accordance with Know Your Customer guidelines by verifying the identity, suitability, and risks involved with maintaining a business relationship with the user to prevent fraud and monetary obfuscation (col.32 ln23-ln37, Data can include user identification data 5110 (e.g. know your customer data obtained during the user onboarding process), user account authentication data 5112 (e.g., login credentials, multi-factor authentication data, and/or anti-money laundering verifications), account activities logs 5114, electronic ledger data 5116, fiat account balance data 5118, and/or digital wallet balance data 5120. One or more software modules may be stored in the memory and running or configured to run on the one or more processors. Such modules can include a web server module 5122, authenticator module 5124, risk management module 5126, matching engine module 5128, electronic ledger module 5130, digital wallet module 5132, and/or fiat account module 5134.),
Examiner’s Note (Intended Use): The portion of the limitation which recites “to prevent fraud and monetary” is merely a recited intended use of authenticating user credentials. This portion is given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for…. [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Saucier further teaches: wherein the transaction tax summary is stored in a blockchain ([0079], FIG. 11 illustrates a further exemplary embodiment of the invention wherein, as in FIG. 10 , the user inputs an asset, or some form of documentation of an asset, into the system, which stores and digitizes the asset, and provides a transaction receipt to the user, including keys allowing the user to demonstrate ownership of and access the digitized asset held by the system. The transaction can be recorded on a blockchain; see also [0178] on tax)
The combination of Harrison and Saucier doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Lyren teaches:
wherein a liquidity pool comprises the digital asset for use in a banking lending service in which traditional deposits are converted to digital assets for yield farming, token trading, or other financial transaction ([0085], An example embodiment of the Bob protocol differs from other decentralized exchanges that establish large liquidity pools that always have sufficient coins to loan or swap. For example, UNISWAP is an example of one such liquidity pool that utilizes an Automated Market Maker algorithm and asymptotic pricing to ensure the liquidity pool always has available assets to swap. These liquidity pools have an inherent shortcoming of price fluctuation: Users are charged different interest rates based on supply and demand. The Bob protocol avoids these price fluctuations and maintains a fixed interest rate that does not vary over time for both borrowers of USDC and Bob coin holders. For example, a first borrower borrowing USDC from the lending pool in January will pay the same fixed interest rate as a second borrower borrowing USDC from the lending pool in February - December of the same year or other months of subsequent years; see also [0050] on token trading.)
generate the blockchain ledger to provide an immutable record of the financial transaction to ensure trust and compliance in the merging of decentralized finance with traditional banking services ([0135], The system can record the transaction can be recorded on an immutable digital ledger (e.g., blockchain).
Examiner’s Note (Intended Use): The portion of the limitation which recites “to ensure trust and compliance in the merging of decentralized finance with traditional banking services” is merely a recited intended use of generating the blockchain ledger. This portion is given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for…. [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Harrison/Saucier with the teaching of Lyren as they relate to managing digital assets in decentralized network. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the systems of Harrison /Saucier, for example exchanging digital asset in a marketplace in Harrison, to include a liquidity pool for the digital asset as taught in Lyren for the predicated result of improved system of reconciling a record of transactions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 1/10/2026