DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14 and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14 and 16-20 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant's filing on 8/27/2025.
Claims 4 and 15 were cancelled in the Applicant's filing on 8/27/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 8/27/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following an amount of cryptocurrency being transferred from an external cryptocurrency account to a gaming establishment-controlled custodian account associated with an identified user, cause the processor to:
A system claim is defined the method steps that the structural elements of said system are configured to perform or, when the system is executing stored instructions, the method steps to be performed by the structural elements of said system.
However, method steps performed outside the recited system have no patentable weight. The structural elements are not configured to perform the method steps nor are the structural elements of said system performing the method steps when the system is executing the stored instructions.
Claim 12. A method comprising:
following an amount of cryptocurrency being transferred from an external cryptocurrency account to a gaming establishment-controlled custodian account associated with an identified user:
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., transferring cryptocurrency), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., cryptocurrency transferred). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 12. A method comprising:
determining, by a processor when a request to pledge at least part of the amount of the cryptocurrency as collateral for a line of credit is approved, an amount of available funds associated of the line of credit;
placing, by the processor when the identified user accesses at least a portion of the amount of available funds and a lock placement determination occurs, a lock on any transfers of the amount of cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with the identified user back to the external cryptocurrency account;
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Usage of the term and/or phrase “when …” in Claim 1 suggests that there remains the possibility that the contingent limitations are not performed as the condition(s) precedent is not met. For example, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the request is not approved and, as such, there is no determination of an amount of available funds. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the user does not access the funds and no lock placement determination occurs and, as such, there is no placement of a lock. Therefore, the claim limitations based upon the condition are optional claim limitations. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim limitations do not narrow the scope of the invention, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitation(s) fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function (i.e., configured to perform a function), which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP §2111.04(II). The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
4. 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 1-3, 5-9, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method and a system, executing instructions, causing the system to perform a method comprising:
following an amount of [currency] being transferred from an external [currency] account to a gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with an identified user;
determining, … when a request to pledge at least part of the amount of the [currency] as collateral for a line of credit is approved, an amount of available funds associated of the line of credit;
placing, by the processor when the identified user accesses at least a portion of the amount of available funds and a lock placement determination occurs, a lock on any transfers of the amount of [currency] from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with the identified user back to the external [currency] account,
determining, …, if any portion of the amount of available funds is owed on the line of credit when a conclusion of a limited duration associated with the line of credit is reached;
releasing, …, the placed lock when the conclusion of the limited duration associated with the line of credit is reached and the determination is that no portion of the amount of available funds is owed on the line of credit, and;
maintaining, …, the placed lock when the conclusion of the limited duration associated with the line of credit is reached and the determination is that at least part of the amount of available funds is owed on the line of credit.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to manage collateral used to secure a line of credit which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Examiner notes that locking up collateral used to secure a line of credit is mitigation of financial risk that there will be insufficient collateral to satisfy the debt and that the mitigation of financial risk is a court-provided example of a fundamental economic practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. (2014).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a processor (Claim(s) 1 and 12) and a memory (Claim(s) 1), and wherein the currency is cryptocurrency (Claim(s) 1 and 12).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, 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.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-3, 5-9, 13, 14 and 16-20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1 and 12. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite performance of a “lock placement determination.”
However, the Examiner was unable to find any description of a “lock placement determination” in the specification.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 further define the “lock placement determination,” reciting that the “lock placement determination” is based on other variables.
While those other variables (e.g., attribute of the user) are utilized in the specification to make determinations (e.g., determination of the loan amount – see para. 4), Examiner was unable to find the “lock placement determination,” either alone nor in conjunction with the other variables cited in the claims.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US PG Pub. 2018/0365764) and Upadrasta (US PG Pub. 2024/0021046).
Regarding Claim 12, Nelson discloses a method of operating a system, the method comprising:
following an amount of cryptocurrency being transferred (deposited or received) from an external cryptocurrency account to a controlled custodian account (Asset Vault) associated with an identified user (participant). (see para. 19, 48-55);
determining, by a processor, when a request to pledge at least a part of the amount of the cyptocurrency as collateral for a line of credit is approved, an amount of available funds of the line of credit (loan value or an amount equal to the USD value of the collateral). (see abstract; para. 42);
placing, by the processor, when the identified user accesses at least a portion of the amount of available funds and a lock placement determination occurs, a lock on any transfers of the amount of cryptocurrency from the controlled custodian account associated with the identified user (participant) back to the external account. (see para. 60 and 113);
determining, by the processor, if any portion of the amount of available funds is owed on the line of credit when a conclusion of a limited duration (specified amount of time) associated with the line of credit is reached. (see para. 62);
releasing, by the processor, the placed lock (unlocking collateral) when the conclusion of the limited duration (specified amount of time) associated with the line of credit is reached and the determination is that no portion of the amount of available funds is owed on the line of credit (loan is repaid in the amount equal to that which was originally withdrawn). (see fig. 3A;para. 19 and 42); and
maintaining, by the processor, the placed lock when the conclusion of the limited duration associated with the line of credit is reached and the determination is that at least part of the amount of available funds is owed on the line of credit (necessary assets or funds are not contributed in time). (see fig. 3A; para. 64).
Nelson does not explicitly teach a method wherein the controlled custodian account is a gaming establishment-controlled custodian account.
Upadrasta discloses a method wherein the controlled custodian account is a gaming establishment (casino) controlled custodian account. (see para. 60).
Upadrasta discloses a method comprising determining, by a processor, when a request to pledge at least a part of the amount of the cryptocurrency (Ethers) as collateral for a line of credit (DIA) is approved, an amount of available funds (balance) associated with the line of credit. (see para. 50, 56 and 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Nelson to incorporate a gaming establishment-controlled custodian account, as disclosed by Upadrasta, thereby utilizing the collateral to secure credit at a gaming establishment, as disclosed by Upadrasta.
Regarding Claim 13, Nelson does not teach a method wherein the limited duration is associated with a period of time during which the identified user visits a gaming establishment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention was made to allow for the limited duration (i.e. time period) that the inventor desired, such as a limited duration associated with a gaming visit, as disclosed by Upadrasta. In re Kuhle, 526
Regarding Claim 14, Nelson does not explicitly teach a method wherein the limited duration less than a repayment duration associated with another line of credit not associated with any amounts of cryptocurrency pledged as collateral, although Nelson discloses a method wherein the other amounts (other portfolios) not associated with any amounts of cryptocurrency pledged as collateral. (see para. 81).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention was made to allow for the limited duration (i.e. time period) that the inventor desired, such as a limited duration less than a repayment duration associated with another line of credit. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 16, Nelson discloses a method wherein the lock placement determination is based on a current price (market value) of the amount of cryptocurrency. (see para. 94).
Regarding Claim 17, Nelson discloses a method wherein the lock placement determination is based on an attribute (identity verification) of the identified user. (see para. 81).
Regarding Claim 18, Nelson discloses a method wherein the lock placement determination is based on a volatility of price fluctuations of the cryptocurrency. (see para. 62).
Regarding Claim 19, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 20, Nelson discloses a method comprising, responsive to the conclusion of the limited duration associated with the line of credit when at least part of the amount of available funds is owed on the line of credit, automatically liquidating at least part of the amount of cryptocurrency. (see para. 72).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5-9, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
7. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current rejection. However, some arguments remain relevant, as they apply to a reference and/or rejection still utilized in the current rejection. Such arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 8-9.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Specifically, the particular manner in which the gaming establishment credit system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem with offering gaming establishment lines of credit for pledged cryptocurrency in view of the risk of the user reclaiming the pledged cryptocurrency without paying back the line of credit. That is, since certain users may attempt to transfer cryptocurrency balances out from a gaming establishment account associated with that user while the user has accessed an outstanding amount of funds from a line of credit, gaming establishment operators need to employ certain technical safeguards against such attempted frauds being committed. See Arguments, p. 8 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further argues that the solution constitutes “specific improvements in technology.” See Arguments, p. 9.
However, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, the risk of the user reclaiming the pledged collateral without paying back the line of credit, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
Applicant further argues:
More specifically, to account for these lapses in security associated with enabling cryptocurrency to be pledged as collateral for a line of credit, as described in detail in the specification, following an amount of cryptocurrency being transferred from an external cryptocurrency account to a gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with an identified user, the gaming establishment credit systems and methods place a lock on any transfers of cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with the identified user back to the external cryptocurrency account and then, dependent on whether or not any amount of available funds are still owed on the line of credit when a conclusion of a limited duration associated with the line of credit reached, either release or maintain the placed lock. Such a configuration provides access to funds based on cryptocurrency holdings that certain users prefer while protecting the gaming establishment credit system operator from nefarious individuals looking to defraud the gaming establishment credit system. In other words, the claimed gaming establishment credit systems and methods enable cryptocurrency to be pledged as collateral by a user in association with a line of credit (in a way not previously available) while still protecting the credit system operator by employing risk management tools to limit the impact of attempted fraudulent behavior by certain of such users. See Arguments, pp. 8-9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
However, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes, or is addressing a technology-based problem.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that there is even a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions but for the claimed technical solution.
Additionally, MPEP §2106.05(f)(1) recites:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743 – emphasis added.
Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished.
If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed.
For example, if computer security was inadequate to keep users from reclaiming the pledged cryptocurrency without paying back the line of credit, then the claims, as written, should recite the details of how this was achieved. However, the claim merely recites the idea of a solution (i.e., locking an account).
The court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., preventing a user reclaiming the pledged collateral without paying back the line of credit) that uses computers as tools.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); [and]
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
8. Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 January 16, 2026