DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17-18, 20, 23, 25-27, 30, and 34-35 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 36-105 were previously been cancelled. Claim 106 has been newly added. Thus, claims 1-35 and 106 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-35 and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-35 and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-17 and 106), a machine (claims 18-34), and a manufacture (claim 35), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining the value of a token based on information for use in a transaction by:
storing,…, at a central entry for valuing and transacting tokens on a blockchain, respective quantities for a plurality of instruments wherein;
the central entity is coupled to a distributed network of nodes implementing the blockchain, and
implementing the blockchain, and the blockchain persistently stores transaction data using a blockchain ledger associated with the blockchain;
receiving, by the central entity,…, information about the plurality of instruments;
calculating by the central entity,.., a value of the token on the blockchain based on the respective quantities of the plurality of instruments and on the information;
receiving, by the central entity,…, updated information about the plurality of instruments;
updating, by the central entity,…, the value of the token based on the updated information;
causing, by the central entity, the updated value of the token to be stored in the blockchain ledger;
performing, by the central entity, a transaction based on the updated value of the token using the blockchain; and
causing, by the central entity, the blockchain ledger to be updated based on the transaction.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., determining the value of a token based on information for use in a transaction).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Independent claims 18 and 35 are nearly identical to claim 1. However, claim 18 includes several additional elements such as a “storage equipment” and “transceiver” that are not found in claims 1 and 35. These elements are being used to implement the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Independent claim 18 also includes additional limitations not found in the other claims which described in more detail what the blockchain does as well what the central entity is doing as well as its relationship to the blockchain. Claims 1, 18, and 35 would also fall under the category of mathematical relationships as the value of the token is being calculated based on the respective quantities of the plurality of instruments.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “server,” “network,” “channel,” and “circuitry” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0003] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2–17, 19–34, and 106 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2 and 19 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that quantity of zero would be the amount for the plurality of instruments. Dependent claims 3 and 20 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that there is at least one node of the distributed network of nodes in the system. Dependent claims 4 and 21 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe the types of instruments in the plurality of instruments and what they consist of in terms of specific assets. Dependent claims 5 and 22 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the information of the plurality of instruments is a market value. Dependent claims 6 and 23 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe determining quantities of the plurality of instruments. Dependent claims 7 and 24 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe monitoring the assets underlying which collateralize the token so that a reserve requirement is established. Dependent claims 8 and 25 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe calculating the value of the token based on various time zones. Dependent claims 9 and 26 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe how the value of a token is based on the instrument. Dependent claims 10 and 27 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the system stores multiple types of plurality of instruments. Dependent claims 11 and 28 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the tokens are associated with the instrument. Dependent claims 12 and 29 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe having an automatic change of the reserve assets based on a change of the quantities of the plurality of instruments. Dependent claims 13 and 30 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the network of nodes is located on at least a private or public distributed network of nodes. Dependent claims 14 and 31 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe exchanging other tokens of a second type for the first type based on some exchange rate. Dependent claims 15 and 32 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the token is redeemable for a plurality of instruments. Dependent claims 16 and 33 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the token is redeemable for a single instrument. Dependent claims 17 and 34 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe a buyer purchases the right to a token in which the system allocates reserve assets that collateralize the token. Dependent claim 106 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the blockchain ledger is updated based on the transaction comprises causing the transaction to be replicated on the private blockchain.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on December 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “However, Applicant submits that the claims, when considered in whole, recite a technological solution and not merely fundamental economic practices/principles or commercial/legal interactions. For example, at least the following limitations of amended independent claim 1 are explicitly directed to a blockchain system and associated ledger.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). However, the heart of this invention is tied to performing a transaction based on a certain value of a token on a blockchain. These claims most definitely recite an abstract idea. Specifically, this is within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions.
Applicant argues that “Thus, Applicant submits that the recited central entity and distributed network structure, along with the aforementioned limitations, are additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in accordance with Step 2A Prong 2.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 12). Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. There are no interactive features in this invention that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Merely using a “central entity” to perform transactions on a blockchain does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
James et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,141,871) teaches the use of a stable value digital asset to pay dividends or other payments for securities tied to a blockchain. Although the invention in James describes the use of a stable value digital asset in terms of a token, it fails to disclose the following limitations of the current invention:
calculating, using processing circuitry, a value of the token based on the respective quantities of the plurality of instruments and on the information;
receiving, from the plurality of servers over the one or more data communication channels, updated information about the plurality of instruments;
updating, using processing circuitry, the value of the token based on the updated information; and
providing the value of the token to one or more nodes of the distributed network for use in a transaction.
However, James does not teach calculating the value of a token based on the underlying assets and then updating this value to then provide the value of the token for use in a transaction.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696