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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 03 November 2025.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The claims have been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that when taken as a whole, the claim recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by providing an advantageous financial management system that relies on cryptocurrency technology to implement a practical ordered system of inputs, network communications, and specific network financial transactions. Applicant further cites this improvement as market neutrality, improved tax treatment for the employer and employee, direct cryptocurrency operation, and creation of ‘composite monies’. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic 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))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that the claim as a whole is more than merely a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exceptions of paying a salary, and purchasing/settling a forward contract. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 ("We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption"). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that "patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity." Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, the attempt to limit the breadth of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9855, 17-18 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).
Applicant argues that the claims have a specific application and as such are not likely to be so abstract as to be rejected for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible).” See MPEP 2106.04(I). Narrowing the judicial exception to the particular use case or context applicant describes does not negate the fact that the claim(s) recites and/or describes a judicial exception. The claim(s) recites and/or describes a judicial exception.
Applicant argues over pages 9-10 that the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must in combination provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality.
Applicant argues their claims are similar to those in the BASCOM case. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In BASCOM, filtering content was seen as an improvement to the technological field of network technology. In that case they focused on how BASCOM improved the filtering technology in an unconventional manner. Applicant does not improve the functioning of a computer or transmission of data. Applicant is merely applying a commonplace business method on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §2106.05(a)(II)(i). Merely selecting a type of data to use or associate with does not constitute an integration into a practical application. The case of BASCOM does not apply to the applicant’s claims.
Applicant emphasizes on page 10 that “The claims as a whole describe a new specific method that additionally utilizes the network, cryptocurrency technology and digital ledger technology to not merely to perform an abstract idea on the internet but as a limitation essential to the operation of the claim as a whole”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method and system for alternative asset based financial management contracts. These are a process and machine which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1-2 (Claim 2’s elements taken as representative since Claims 1-2 recite substantially similar subject matter):
Claim(s) 1-2:
“receive as input…a plurality of employer parameters including a predetermined period of time and a salary of an employee;”
“associate the plurality of employer parameters with the employee…”
“receive as input…a parameter defining a portion of the employee’s salary;”
“associate the parameter with the employee…”
“connect the financial management system to a bank account of the employer and to a bank account of the employee…”
“…execute a first financial transaction over the network paying, from the bank account of the employer, the portion of the salary to the financial management system in a fiat currency having an original fiat currency value;”
“associate the portion of the salary with the employee;”
“…directly purchase a cryptocurrency forward contract with the portion of the employee's salary with an expiration date equal to the predetermined period of time,…”
“at the end of the predetermined period of time, … settle the forward contract,…”
“upon settling of the forward contract, determine whether the settling amount is greater than the original fiat currency value;”
“upon determining that the settling amount is greater than the original fiat currency value, associate the difference between the settling amount and the original fiat currency value with the employee.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices or Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one computing device”, “at least one processor”, “non-transitory memory”, “network communication”, or “software module” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices or Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Mitigating Risk or could reasonably describe Business Relations. Mitigating Risk is described when mitigating financial asset risk. Business Relations is described when paying out salary via alternative assets using loans. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices or Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following and/or similar additional elements (Again, Claim 2’s elements taken as representative since Claims 1-2 recite substantially similar subject matter):
Claim(s) 1-2:
“at least one computing device comprising at least one processor, at least one API, at least one database, and non-transitory memory, the at least one computing device configured for network in communication with a distributed ledger for recording transactions for a cryptocurrency and configured for network communication with at least one bank for conducting financial transactions in a fiat currency;”
“at least one user interface in communication with at least one of the at least one computing device;”
“at least one financial management software module configured to run on one of the at least one computing device, wherein the at least one financial management software module is configured to:”
“…and store the plurality of employer parameters on the at least one database;”
“…and store the parameter on the at least one database;”
“…via one of the at least one user interface of the financial management system…”
“…via one of the at least one user interface…”
“…via at least one API;”
“automatically…”
“automatically…”
“…wherein the purchasing includes recording the cryptocurrency forward contract on the distributed ledger;”
“…automatically…”
“…wherein the settling includes recording the settling on the distributed ledger;”
The computer components (computing device, processor, API, database, non-transitory memory, communication network, and automatic operation) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computing device, generic processor, generic API, generic storage, generic network and being performed automatically) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The recording and storing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally recording and generally storing) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of a distributed ledger and user interface is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for recording/storing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blackburn et al. (US 2022/0198460 A1) discloses connecting loans to payroll systems.
Nabers (US 2023/0007946 A1) discloses investing payroll contributions into cryptocurrency investments.
Edelson (US 2006/0229960 A1) discloses that salaries can be acquired and exchanged for derivates including forward contracts.
(JP 2021501431 A) discloses a portion of a user’s salary may be invested into a pension fund which includes cryptocurrency.
Cameron (“The Regulation of Cryptocurrency to Renumerate Employees in Australia”) discloses renumeration of employees with cryptocurrency.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691