DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement
The amendment/remarks filed 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Based upon the newly amended claim language, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the office action dated 10/30/2026 for the reasons previously stated are withdrawn. However, the newly amended claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as providing indefinite language below.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections
The Applicant asserts that Step 2A, Prong One has been satisfied because the newly amended claims, “divides the performance of the approximating algorithm from the rest of the recited steps by assigning the former to an off-chain computing device and latter to the on-chain smart contract.” [See Applicant’s Remarks page 8]. The Applicant also asserts that the operational relationship between the off-chain and on-chain processing does not recite any of the abstract ideas that recited by other limitations of the claims, and that the newly amended claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity because “they represent technical components performing technical acts” which do not pertain to any economic principles and practices. The Examiner vehemently disagrees. The Applicant is respectfully reminded that in the Supreme Court Alice Corp case, in determining whether the claims were directed to an abstract idea, did not only consider the claims themselves, which provided and used computer technological elements/components to manage shadow accounts, but also determined from the Appellant’s disclosure that the claims were directed to economic principles and practices (i.e., mitigating settlement risk).
In the instant case, the Applicant’s specification indeed describes economic practices of managing tokens involving creating transactions, or performing operations that reflect transactions of token users.[see at least specification background]. It is also the case that the conventional concept of a bonding curve (Fig. 2C) mathematically defines the relationship between a token’s price and supply. Thus, it is maintained that Applicant’s description (i.e., including the bonding curve) relates to the fundamental economic principle of supply and demand which provides a mathematical algorithm of the token’s price and circulating supply which may be considered part of “maintaining crypto tokens”.
It is also the case that a bonding curve as well as an approximating algorithm for estimating are mathematical concepts which in this case are being related to the supply or number of crypto tokens or crypto token types. It is being maintained that wherein maintaining crypto tokens involves increasing and decreasing the amount of crypto tokens are performed in part by executing an approximating algorithm or performing the integral of the bonding curve describe abstract concepts relating to performing mathematical calculations.
In Regards to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner acknowledges recitations set forth by the Applicant in MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) as to whether the specification has sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention providing an improvement. It should be of particular note, as the Applicant has pointed out that the claim include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. While it is acknowledged that the claim itself does not explicitly need to recite the improvement, the conundrum that remains for the Examiner to determine is whether the features in the claim upon which the Applicant relies are actually recited in the claims. It is the case that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26, USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Wherein the Applicant has indicated that the additional element of “ an off-chain computer device executing an approximating algorithm for estimating…” is an improvement because as described in “[0013] …the approximation can be done off-chain, that is by chain-logic, without the individual computational steps being visible on a distributed ledger…because, on-chain computation is expensive and resource intensive.” This function/process is being understood as multiprocessing (i.e., similar to asymmetric or parallel processing) were a different devices or computers handles different tasks to the main one. Thus, wherein the off-chain computer device performs functions of the approximating algorithm similar to multiprocessing, such function is interpreted as are well-understood, routine and convention. Thus, the additional element(s) add an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. [see MPEP 2106.05(g)-Mere data gathering-Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated-Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.]
In regards to Step 2B, the off-chain element is a server device (see Specification, page 5, lines 25-27). At least claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, there are no combination of elements recited in the claims and thus the claim merely describe the concept of maintaining crypto tokens using abstract mathematical concepts Therefore, the claim fails to implement the abstract idea into significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
The newly amended claim language reciting off-chain executing an approximating algorithm is not found in the prior art of Kilroe. Thus the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12, the phrase "for example" (see in the claims “…wherein each cure is defined by a polynomial, e.g., a Bezier spline;”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
17. Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
18. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 11 is directed to a server device, claim 12 is directed to a client device and claim 13 is directed to a computer readable medium for maintaining crypto tokens.
19. Claims 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “maintaining crypto tokens” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing and sales activities and business relationships) using mathematical concepts (formulas, algorithms, calculations etc.,), in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
For example, Claim 1 recites,
“maintaining a current supply size indicating the number of crypto tokens of a first type;
processing a creation request for creating crypto tokens of the first type in exchange for an indicated second amount of crypto tokens of a second type according to a creating bonding curve, the indicated second amount being indicated with the creation request, wherein creating the bonding curve is defined by a sequence of multiple curve segments [integration], and wherein each curve is defined by a polynomial,., Bezier spline;
computing a first amount of crypto tokens of the first type to be created in response to the creation request by
performing,…, a private computation executing an approximating algorithm for estimating the first amount wherein an integral of the creating bonding curve from the current supply size to the current supply size increased with the first amount equals the indicated second amount to within a threshold,…
providing a result of the private computation, the result comprising the first amount,…, wherein processing the creation request further includes increasing the current supply size with the first amount of crypto tokens of the first type, and
transferring the first amount of crypto tokens of the first type.”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
20. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional element(s) (e.g., off-chain computing device, server device, communication interface, processor, etc., ) recited at a high level of generality and merely uses the computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Specifically, the claims do not improve a computer but uses a approximating algorithm with a computer system for calculating and/or estimating a first amount of crypto tokens. Thus the use of the server device/processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a server/processor/computer performing a mathematical calculation that correspond to the acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Moreover, the additional element(s) (i.e., off-chain computing device) add an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. [see MPEP 2106.05(g)-Mere data gathering-Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated-Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.]
Thus, the additional elements do not involve the improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), nor does the mathematical calculation of an amount of crypto currency does not apply the abstract idea with or use of a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and/or do no more than perform a mathematical calculation (i.e., use the approximating algorithm) to perform the abstract idea of maintaining crypto tokens.
21. Thus, when analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, there are no combination of elements recited in the claims and thus the claim merely describe the concept of maintaining crypto tokens using abstract mathematical concepts Therefore, the claim fails to implement the abstract idea into significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
22. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
23. Claims 2-3 related to further defining the approximating algorithm which is related to abstract mathematical concepts.
24. Claim 5 relates to obtaining a smart contract, which is a set of instructions similar to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, being related to an agreement or contract to implement maintenance size of tokens.
25. Claims 4 relates to transferring which does not provide significantly more than the abstract ide of managing crypto tokens.
26. Claim 10 relates to providing a calculation an amount of crypto tokens which relate to mathematical concepts.
27. Claims 11-13 relates to a server, client device and computer readable medium The elements of a server with a communication device in claim 11, a client device in claim 12 and a computer readable medium provide functions which are similar to claim 1 and thus the additional elements merely use the elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea and thus do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea of maintaining crypto tokens.
Conclusion
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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 D Donlon can be reached on 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights