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 application filed on August 2, 2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 19 and product Claim 20. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
at least one memory component that stores instructions; and one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising: causing one or more self-executing contracts deployed on a blockchain network to: associate an asset pool with a plurality of asset providers, one or more of the plurality of asset providers staking pool tokens against the asset pool, track performance of the asset pool in a sliding time window by applying a predetermined performance metric, update a weight of the asset pool by applying a predetermined weight metric that is based on the performance of the asset pool, and perform value distribution to the asset pool based on the weight of the asset pool, value distributed to the asset pool being available to the one or more asset providers with staked pool tokens; and transmitting a message that is indicative of the value distribution to the asset pool.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one memory component and one or more processors in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 19 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of at least one memory component and one or more processors. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
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 exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-18 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont (US 2023/0117941) in view of Wilson (US 2023/0153799) in view of Yantis (US 12,154,086).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 19, and 20:
Dupont teaches:
causing one or more self-executing contracts deployed on a blockchain network to: associate an asset pool with a plurality of asset providers, one or more of the plurality of asset providers staking pool tokens against the asset pool, (Dupont: pgh 43, “Yield farming: typically, users deposit liquidity pool tokens in different DeFi applications…”)
track performance of the asset pool in a sliding time window by applying a predetermined performance metric, (Dupont: pgh 13, “…tracked liquidity performance…”)
update a weight of the asset pool by applying a predetermined weight metric that is based on the performance of the asset pool, and (Dupont: pgh 60, “…the system’s calculations may be continuously updated and reported to users through a dashboard which generates real-time liquidity pool status…”)
perform value distribution to the asset pool based on the weight of the asset pool, value distributed to the asset pool being available to the one or more asset providers with staked pool tokens; and (Dupont: pgh 43, “By moving tokens in and out of different protocols, profits can be strategically compounded based on a user’s ability and risk tolerance.”)
Dupont does not teach, however, Wilson teaches:
A system comprising: at least one memory component that stores instructions; and (Wilson: pgh 114, “…the automated computerized trading system and stored in the memory…”)
one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising: (Wilson: pgh 13, “…implements an automated computerized trading system…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3). Dupont/Wilson does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Yantis teaches:
transmitting a message that is indicative of the value distribution to the asset pool. (Yantis: pgh 204, “…the transfer system executes the exchange upon parsing of a code in a message from a party that controls the second digital token.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Wilson to include the teachings of Yantis to provide a platform that makes virtual item transactions convenient (Yantis: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 2:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: deploying the one or more self-executing contracts to the blockchain network. (Dupont: pgh 40, “Smart contracts operate under a set of pre-determined conditions to which users agree. When those conditions are met, the terms of the agreement are automatically carried out.”)
Regarding claim(s) 3:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further teaches:
wherein a decentralized finance protocol is implemented on the blockchain network, and the pool tokens represent respective shares of the plurality of asset providers in the asset pool. (Dupont: pgh 26, “…DeFi: Decentralized finance is a system by which tokenized assets and financial products become available on a public decentralized blockchain network. That makes them open to anyone to use…DeFi uses software written on blockchains…”)
Regarding claim(s) 4:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further teaches:
the operations further comprising causing the one or more self-executing contracts deployed on the blockchain network to: register the asset pool with a yield farming system on the blockchain network. (Dupont: pgh 36, “LP token or pool token or liquidity token: represents a crypto liquidity provider’s share of liquidity pool. They are tokenized proof that the user provided assets to a pool. LP Tokens can be used in other DeFi products and services, like Yield Farming, depending on the user’s skill level and risk apetite.”; pgh 40, “…in the context of Decentralized Finance (DeFi), can be used to interact with the blockchain to facilitate, verify, or negotiate a contract agreement between a user and a particular protocol.”)
Regarding claim(s) 5:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further teaches:
wherein the sliding time window has a predetermined duration. (Dupont: Fig 4B. Time series graph has a sliding time window with a predetermined duration.)
Regarding claim(s) 9:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wilson further teaches:
the operations further comprising causing the one or more self-executing contracts deployed on the blockchain network to: detect that the asset pool meets one or more value distribution criteria; and (Wilson: pgh 34, “…the TXAU smart contract would also automatically query the total maximum amount of TXAU tokens eligible to be pledged to the DAO wallet…”)
responsive to detecting that the asset pool meets the one or more value distribution criteria, designate the asset pool as value distribution-eligible on the blockchain network. (Wilson: pgh 38, “In a first example, all TXAU received at the DAO wallet is automatically pledged when received.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 10:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Wilson further teaches:
wherein the one or more value distribution criteria comprise at least one of: a minimum duration of pool existence; a minimum number of asset providers; or a minimum pool value. (Wilson: pgh 69, “A minimum unpledging ‘cool off’ period would ensure that the ratio of pledged TXAU token to underlying TXAU remained 1:1…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 11:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Wilson further teaches:
wherein the performing of the value distribution to the asset pool comprises: detecting updating of a state of the asset pool; (Wilson: pgh 31, “…the TXAU token holder indicates a desired to pledge TXAU to the DAO, for example by requesting access using an application.”)
detecting that the asset pool is value distribution-eligible; and (Wilson: pgh 31, “The electronic information received would be reviewable through the application using a compliance process performed at the DAO. Unless approved through the compliance process, no further steps would take place and access to the DAO wallet would not be allowed.”)
responsive to detecting the updating of the state of the asset pool and that the asset pool is value distribution-eligible, performing the value distribution to the asset pool based on the weight of the asset pool. (Wilson: pgh 28, “Additionally, on a block-by-block basis additional GXAU may be given to TXAU stakeholders based on their pro-rata pledged or staked TXAU.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 12:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Wilson further teaches:
wherein the weight of the asset pool is updated responsive to detecting the updating of the state of the asset pool, and the updating of the state of the asset pool comprises execution, on the blockchain network, of a predetermined transaction against the asset pool. (Wilson: pgh 27, “The amount of DAO treasury assets backing each GXAU token would fluctuate based on the trading activities of the DAO…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 13:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wilson further teaches:
wherein the value distribution comprises issuing reward tokens, the operations further comprising causing the one or more self-executing contracts deployed on the blockchain network to: release reward tokens from a reward token escrow based on a decreasing release schedule; (Wilson: pgh 27, “The amount of DAO treasury assets backing each GXAU token would fluctuate based on the trading activities of the DAO as further described below. The release schedule of GXAU to holders of TXAU would follow the schedule described below.”)
withdraw the released reward tokens from the reward token escrow; (Wilson: pgh 65, “…an automatically calculated predetermined percentage stored in memory of 30% of the remaining trading value generated by market operations would be allocated to the holders of TXAU pledged to the DAO.”)
allocate at least some of the released reward tokens to the asset pool. (Wilson: pgh 65, “…an automatically predetermined percentage stored in memory of 30% of the remaining trading value generated by market operations would be allocated to the DAO.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 14:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Wilson further teaches:
wherein the decreasing release schedule is a halving schedule. (Wilson: pgh 47, “In a first embodiment, the emission/release/unlocking schedule may be static…In a second embodiment, holders of the GXAU token may vote on the associated emission schedule…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 15:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Yantis further teaches:
wherein the pool tokens and the reward tokens are fungible tokens. (Yantis: pgh 10, “In some embodiments, the set of tokens corresponding to a virtual representation includes fungible tokens.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Wilson to include the teachings of Yantis to provide a platform that makes virtual item transactions convenient (Yantis: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 16:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Wilson further teaches:
wherein the asset pool is associated with a decentralized finance protocol, and the reward tokens comprise governance tokens of the decentralized finance protocol. (Wilson: pgh 27, “In the first embodiment of the invention, an example of a smart-contract governed, DAO governance token is hereafter referred to as GXAU…GXAU token transfers would occur on the Ethereum blockchain…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 17:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yantis further teaches:
the operations further comprising causing the one or more self-executing contracts deployed on the blockchain network to: detect a claim originating from one of the plurality of asset providers; and responsive to detecting the claim, distribute, via the blockchain network, value associated with the asset pool to the asset provider based on staked pool tokens associated with the asset provider. (Yantis: pgh 940, “…the instance of the smart contract is notified of the payment, which may cause the smart contract to determine whether the loan is fully repaid. If the loan is fully repaid, the smart contract releases the collateral token to the borrower, bring the smart contract to a close.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Wilson to include the teachings of Yantis to provide a platform that makes virtual item transactions convenient (Yantis: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 18:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wilson further teaches:
a value distribution contract associated with the asset pool, the value distribution contract receiving value distributed to the asset pool responsive to updating of a state of the asset pool, and the asset providers being enabled to stake their respective pool tokens in the value distribution contract; and (Wilson: pgh 36, “At step 140, if the sender’s wallet address were included in the data section of the TXAU smart-contract, the smart-contract would allow the transaction to proceed and would transfer the TXAU to the Blockchain address associated with the DAO treasury wallet.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Yantis to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to distribute the investment costs (Wilson: pgh 3). Dupont/Wilson does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Yantis teaches:
wherein the one or more self-executing contracts comprise: a pool manager contract that generates the asset pool on the blockchain network; (Yantis: pgh 984, “At 1704, an instance of a smart contract is generated that corresponds to the user of the tokenization platform.”)
a factory contract that deploys the value distribution contract to the blockchain network responsive to generation of the asset pool. (Yantis: pgh 690, “In embodiments, the instance of the smart contract is deployed to a ledger.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dupont/Wilson to include the teachings of Yantis to provide a platform that makes virtual item transactions convenient (Yantis: pgh 4).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont/Wilson/Yantis in view of Becker (US 2013/0297560).
Regarding claim(s) 6:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Becker further teaches:
wherein the sliding time window is a second period in which a state of the asset pool was updated, and the predetermined performance metric tracks the performance of the asset pool by comparing the performance of the asset pool in the second period to the performance of the asset pool in a first period in which the state of the asset pool was updated, the first period being prior to the second period. (Becker: pgh 346, “The method begins with the module providing a sliding time widow of an evaluation data sample to the recognition filter without adjustment to the time scale or the amplitude scale.”)
Regarding claim(s) 7:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Becker further teaches:
wherein the predetermined performance metric comprises an Average Price Change (APC) metric, and the performance of the asset pool is tracked by determining an APC associated with the asset pool from the first period to the second period. (Becker: pgh 314, “The asset modification module analyzes the evaluation data in light of the sequence one operations…The sequence once operations include an open initial signal detection, open initial position based on moving average operation…the asset modification process for an initial position is triggered…when the distance from the moving average-to-price crossing is at a level indicated by the trigger and activation indicators.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont/Wilson/Yantis in view of Schneider (US 2021/0312553).
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Dupont/Wilson/Yantis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Schneider further teaches:
wherein the performance of the asset pool comprises performance of the asset pool relative to performance of one or more other asset pools, and the predetermined weight metric determines the weight of the asset pool based on the APC associated with the asset pool relative to an APC associated with a group of asset pools, the group of asset pools including the asset pool and the one or more other asset pools. (Schneider: pgh 150, “The average price can be one of a simple moving average (SMA), exponential moving average (EMA), VWAP (Volume Weighted Average Price), TWAP (Time Weighted Average Price), mean price, median price, ATR (Average True Range) price and the like.”)
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Nichani (US 2023/0116401) discloses a system and method for valuation of collateralization of illiquid assets in a blockchain-based ecosystem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
January 26, 2026
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693