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 23 December 2025.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 15 and 17 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A Prong 1
Applicant asserts that claim 1 does not recite a commercial or legal interaction, or any other type of abstract idea under Prong 1 of Step 2A. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2
Applicant argues that Claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into specific technological improvements to blockchain technology that solves concrete technical problems inherent in cross-chain digital asset transfers. Applicant specifically cites paragraphs [00040]-[00042] for the problem statement and [00043]-[00045] and [000123]-[000126] for the solutions presented. Applicant argues that claim 1 fundamentally improves digital asset transfer and addresses the technical problems inherent in cross-chain digital asset transfer systems that rely on fractured liquidity pools or intermediary tokens. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that applicant’s purported improvement comes from potential improvements in the judicial exception, and not from improvements to computers or technology as the recitation of computing components in the claimed invention amounts to no more than invoking computers merely as a tool. See at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Problems of liquidity can exist both in blockchain currency conversion as well as any currency or asset conversion system and is not specific to blockchain technology. Applicant’s problems do not stem from any technological deficiency of blockchain itself, but rather the nature of managing a currency exchange (i.e. business problems). The recitation of generic computing components and generic blockchain to perform an otherwise ineligible judicial exception does not confer patent eligibility. Examiner further notes the following: 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.
Step 2B
Applicant further argues that the claims are not well-understood routine, or conventionally known in the industry as demonstrated by the absence of any prior art rejection. 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 1-20 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 two systems and a method for trustless omnichain communication protocol platforms implementing resource balancing. These are machines and a process 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, 9, and 17:
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17:
“receiving a request to transfer an amount of a digital asset from a source blockchain associated with a unified liquidity pool to a destination blockchain of a set of non-source blockchains, wherein the amount of the digital asset defines a transfer size of the transfer, wherein the unified liquidity pool is partitioned into a set of liquidity partitions, and wherein each liquidity partition of the set of liquidity partitions is assigned to a respective non-source blockchain of the set of non-source blockchains to enable instant guaranteed finality of a digital asset transfer from the source blockchain to the respective non-source blockchain without using an intermediary token;”
“determining whether to initiate the transfer by comparing the transfer size to a balance parameter for the destination blockchain, wherein the balance parameter for the destination blockchain is comprised within a set of state parameters associated with the source blockchain;”
“in response to determining to initiate the transfer, updating the set of state parameters associated with the source blockchain to obtain an updated set of state parameters;”
“sending,… , a message indicative of a subset of state parameters of the updated set of state parameters, wherein the subset of state parameters comprises the transfer size and a credit parameter for the destination blockchain.”
Claim 17:
“…wherein the source blockchain has an associated unified liquidity pool, and wherein the source blockchain is associated with a set of state parameters;”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a memory”, “a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to perform operations comprising:”, “by a processing device”, “a source node maintaining a source blockchain of a network,…”, or “a set of non-source nodes of the network, each non-source node maintaining a respective non-source blockchain, wherein the set of non-source nodes comprises a destination node maintaining a destination blockchain;” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when performing cryptocurrency transfers across blockchains using a unified pool of resources (i.e. currency conversion of cryptocurrencies or a cryptocurrency market maker). If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes 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 additional elements:
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17:
“…to a destination node maintaining the destination blockchain…”
Claim 1:
“a memory”
“a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to perform operations comprising:”
Claim 9:
“…by a processing device…”
Claim 17:
“a source node maintaining a source blockchain of a network,…”
“a set of non-source nodes of the network, each non-source node maintaining a respective non-source blockchain, wherein the set of non-source nodes comprises a destination node maintaining a destination blockchain;”
The computer components (memory, processing device, nodes) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic memory, generic processing device and generic nodes) 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 use of blockchain is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) 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).)
The independent 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 claims recite no elements that are considered insignificant extra solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite processes similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes a search was performed but did not result in a prior art rejection that would render the combination of elements as not novel or non-obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karlin et al. (US 2023/0168944 A1) discloses an automated cryptocurrency market maker.
Dincoglu et al. (US 2025/0014099 A1) discloses a blockchain system using smart contracts for automated market makers.
Khemani (GB 2570469 A) discloses providing a liquidity pool for blockchain.
Guo et al. (CN 112365351 A) discloses intelligent market making using a blockchain currency pool.
Seol et al. (KR 20210059712 A) discloses providing a liquidity pool as a cryptocurrency transaction brokerage service.
Authors et al. (“Blocks to Connect Separate Blocks of Crypto Currencies for Making Payments or Conversion to One Another”) discloses transactions across blockchains.
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
Prosecution Insights