DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on December 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 8, 15, and 21.
Applicant previously cancelled claims 1-7.
Claims 8-26 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 8-26 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued the claims do not recite a fundamental economic practice. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The basis of Examiner’s rejection is the claims recite a commercial/legal interaction, not a fundamental economic practice. Applicant’s arguments on this point are moot.
Applicant argued the claims do not recite a commercial/legal interaction. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims recite economic activity: generating collateralized instruments that are associated with digital currencies, crediting and debiting accounts. This economic activity is sufficient for the claims to recite commercial/legal interactions.
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued the claims present a technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (creating a collateralized instrument) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to generate a collateralized instrument. Furthermore, Applicant’s alleged technical improvements are not technical improvements, and not commensurate in scope with the claims. “Enabling seamless interoperability…” is mere puffery as opposed to actually claiming/describing in the specification a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem (e.g., on a technical level, Wallet A cannot interact with Wallet B and here is the claimed solution). “Allowing automated selection…” is not even in the claims let alone discussed in the specification as to how this is a technical problem. While Applicant’s claims actually recite updating/modifying liquidation conditions, there is no discussion in the specification as to how this addresses a technical problem, nor do the claims reflect a technical solution. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Applicant argued that the claims amount to significantly more because they recite something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The issue that Applicant is addressing is a financial/business issue, not a technical issue. The fact a security/collateral may vary drastically is a financial/business issue. Applicant’s claims are not addressing a technical barrier to exchanging one form of collateral for another. Applicant has not claimed a method that improves technologically what is occurring. Applicant has merely claimed an improved business method and merely utilizes technology to implement the claims. Furthermore, Applicant is mistaken in its belief that Examiner must show that the abstract idea is conventional. Examiner need to show that the additional elements or combination of elements is conventional; which it has done. Outside the abstract idea there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. These are conventional activity. The limitations alone and in combination with each other do not amount to significantly more. Examiner does not have to prove that the underlying abstract idea is conventional activity.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 8-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as exchanging currencies
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 8-14), machine (claims 21-26), and manufacture/product (claims 15-20).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 8, 15, and 21 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
receiving a first request to generate a collateralized instrument,
the collateralized instrument being associated with a collateral account that comprises a first instance of collateral of a first central bank… currency (CBDC) denomination and the collateralized instrument being associated with a liquidation condition that corresponds to the CBDC denomination;
generating the collateralized instrument associated with the collateral account, the collateralized instrument including the liquidation condition,
wherein the collateralized instrument is a smart contract stored on a blockchain network,
and wherein the smart contract is configured to receive one or more requests;
in response to receiving a second request to exchange CBDCs within the collateral account from a first CBDC denomination to a second CBDC denomination,
obtaining an exchange rate that can be used to calculate an exchange between the first CBDC denomination and the second CBDC denomination;
identifying a first amount of the first CBDC denomination within the collateral account;
calculating a second amount of the second CBDC denomination;
obtaining the second amount of the second CBDC denomination;
crediting, to the collateral account, the second amount of the second CBDC denomination; and
debiting, from the collateral account, the first amount of the first CBDC denomination
and modifying the liquidation condition of the collateralized instrument to correspond to the second CBDC denomination.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite generic system components for implementing the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of an exchange application, a market application, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, machine-readable instructions, a processor, a computing device, a memory, a smart contract, a blockchain network; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a vehicle with generic sensors and one or more generic computers. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of modern vehicles, which include sensors and computers. They are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving a first request to exchange central bank… currencies;
receive a second request to exchange central bank… currencies;
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere sending and receiving of data, which courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, 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 as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an exchange application, a market application, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, machine-readable instructions, a processor, a computing device, a memory, a smart contract, a blockchain network; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a vehicle with generic components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations of:
receiving a first request to exchange central bank… currencies;
receive a second request to exchange central bank… currencies;
amount to the sending and receiving data between devices, claimed at a high level of generality. These insignificant extra-solution activities are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the federal courts See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0011-0018], [0028], [0031-0033], [0051-0057] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23, and 26 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 8, 15, and 21. Therefore, claims 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23, and 26 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 11, 12, 18, 19, 24, and 25 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 8, 15, and 21. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a CBDC network. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 11, 12, 18, 19, 24, and 25 are considered ineligible subject matter.
As for dependent claims 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 25 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 8, 15, and 21. In addition, the recite the additional elements of
sending a purchase request;
receiving in response to sending the purchase request, a purchase response;
transmitting the CBDC transfer;
This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information. These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 25 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 9-14, 16-20, and 22-26 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 9-6 CDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694