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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to U.S.C. 101 rejection Applicant is of the opinion that claims are not directed to abstract idea but is rather inextricably tied to computer technology. Further, claims are similar to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com and Example, 47. Additionally, claims are not an abstract idea under Visual memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. and SiRF Technology v. ITC. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to creating and registering a token and creating and applying waterfall logic which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “issuing an asset token identifier…; assigning an asset class to the asset token…; adding…additional token…to create a composite token; publishing the unique token identifier…; determining a value…; creating an internal waterfall logic…and applying the internal waterfall …”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps issuing a unique token identifier, assigning an asset class, storing the asset token, adding additional token to create composite token, publishing the token, determining a value of the composite token, creating and applying an internal waterfall to the value of the composite token which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, decentralized computer platform, smart contract, waterfall logic, distributed ledger and wallet merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims are not similar to DDR Holdings, In the case of DDR Holdings, the claim addresses the problem of retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host’s web site to an advertiser’s Web site, for which the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network". Here, however, the instant claim is directed to abstract idea of creating and registering a token and creating and applying waterfall logic. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, Applicant did not identify any problem particular to computer networks and/or the Internet that claim allegedly overcome.
With respect to Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017) this case is different than applicant’s claims. According to this case, the claims were directed to “an ‘improved memory system’ that configured operational characteristics of a computer’s cache memory based on the type of processor connected to the memory system,” allowing “the claimed invention to accommodate different types of processors without compromising performance.”. However, the Applicant’s claims and specification are silent with respect to any improvement to memory of system to accommodate different types of processors without compromising performance.
With respect to SiRF Technology v. ITC, the claims address to “calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver” and “computing absolute position” by updating an estimate position of the GPS receiver, proving an estimate of the time at which a GPS receiver receives a plurality of satellite signals, and computing the position of the GPS receiver. Claim further requires “pseudoranges” that estimate the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites. Pseudoranges, which are the distances or estimated distances between satellites and a GPS receiver, can exist only with respect to a particular GPS receiver that receives the satellite signals. It requires the estimation of “states” that are associated with a satellite signal receiver and the formation of a dynamic model to compute position of the satellite signal receiver. Therefore, the panel decided that it is clear that methods at issue could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver; indeed, without a GPS receiver it would be impossible to generate pseudoranges or to determine the position of the GPS receiver whose position is the precise goal of the claims. However, Applicant claims recites decentralized computer platform that is merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional element does not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The additional element does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to Example 47 claim 3, The claims are not similar to claim 3 of Example 47. Claim 3 of Example 47 was eligible based on limitations that provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measure to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potential malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step, dropping potentially malicious packets and blocking future traffic from the source address which is rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer security. However, Applicant’s claims recite issuing a unique token identifier, assigning an asset class, storing the asset token, adding additional token to create composite token, publishing the token, determining a value of the composite token, creating and applying an internal waterfall to the value of the composite token which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-20 have been examined.
Claim 4 has been canceled by the Applicant.
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 and 5-20 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 the instance case, claims 1-3, 5-10 and 11-16 are directed to a system, claims 17-20 are directed to method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are directed to creating and registering a token and creating and applying waterfall logic which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “issuing an asset token identifier…; assigning an asset class to the asset token…; adding…additional token…to create a composite token; publishing the unique token identifier…; determining a value…; creating an internal waterfall logic…and applying the internal waterfall …”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps issuing a unique token identifier, assigning an asset class, storing the asset token, adding additional token to create composite token, publishing the token, determining a value of the composite token, creating and applying an internal waterfall to the value of the composite token which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, decentralized computer platform, smart contract, waterfall logic, distributed ledger, processor, memory and wallet merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, decentralized computer platform, smart contract, waterfall logic, distributed ledger, processor, memory and wallet perform the steps of issuing a unique token identifier, assigning an asset class, storing the asset token, adding additional token to create composite token, publishing the token, determining a value of the composite token, creating and applying an internal waterfall to the value of the composite token. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106), the additional elements of decentralized computer platform, smart contract, waterfall logic, distributed ledger, processor, memory and wallet, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of creating and registering a token and creating and applying waterfall. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, decentralized computer platform, smart contract, waterfall logic, distributed ledger, processor, memory and wallet performs the steps of issuing a unique token identifier, assigning an asset class, storing the asset token, adding additional token to create composite token, publishing the token, determining a value of the composite token, creating and applying an internal waterfall to the value of the composite token. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-16 and 18-20 further describe the abstract idea of creating and registering a token and creating and applying waterfall logic. Specifically claims 2-3, 5 and 14-15 further describing additional element of waterfall logic which is part of the abstract idea. Claim 6 describing access control of the token which is an abstract idea of abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 7-8 describing the token which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 16 describing adding the data via plug-in which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 11-13 further describing token and assets which are part of the abstract idea. Claims 18-20 recites storing the composite token and dividing the asset token into two shares which is part of the abstract idea. Claim 19 further describe the additional element such waterfall logic. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights