DETAILED ACTION
This is first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/29/2023.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 9-10 recite various “components,” each performing corresponding function. All of the recited components invokes 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method, claims 12-17 are directed to a system comprising a memory and a processor. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites products that do not have a physical or tangible form, a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se"). Claim 11 claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
The limitations of independent claim 1, which is representative of independent claims 9 and 11, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A computer-implemented method for creating and exchanging cryptographically verifiable utility tokens associated with an issuing individual, comprising:
verifying an identity of an issuing individual in respect of whom utility tokens are to be issued and creating a token issuer account in respect of that issuing individual;
subsequent to verification of the issuing individual's identity, causing a fixed number of utility tokens to be created, each utility token being associated with the issuing individual and being cryptographically verifiable;
receiving registration requests from a plurality of users and creating user accounts for each of the plurality of users,
during a first phase: receiving, from each of a first group of users, value offers to purchase an unspecified number of utility tokens;
generating a face value per utility token that optimizes a number of tokens and a total value of the tokens to be sold to the first group of users; and
enabling users to be added to the first group of users and enabling the first group of users to each increase their value offer such that the generated face value per utility token increases;
upon conclusion of the first phase, generating a final face value per utility token and facilitating a payment transaction in which each user of the first group of users pays the final face value per utility token and receives a number of utility tokens based on that user's value offer, each purchased utility token being cryptographically linked to a user; and
subsequent to the first phase: determining a dynamic face value of the utility tokens;
enabling the issuing individual and any user holding utility tokens to offer to sell utility tokens to a purchasing user at the dynamic face value;
facilitating a payment transaction in which the purchasing user pays the dynamic face value and receives the offered utility tokens which are then cryptographically linked to the purchasing user.
Limitations A through K under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of commercial interactions. Other than reciting generic computer hardware in limitation A, nothing in the claim element differentiates the limitation from commercial interactions. Therefore, limitations A through K recite an abstract idea, as highlighted above, that is sales activities aspects of certain method of organizing human activities.
Accordingly, claim 1, and by analogy similar claims 9 and 11, recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements in bold below:
A computer-implemented method for creating and exchanging cryptographically verifiable utility tokens associated with an issuing individual, comprising:
verifying an identity of an issuing individual in respect of whom utility tokens are to be issued and creating a token issuer account in respect of that issuing individual;
subsequent to verification of the issuing individual's identity, causing a fixed number of utility tokens to be created, each utility token being associated with the issuing individual and being cryptographically verifiable;
receiving registration requests from a plurality of users and creating user accounts for each of the plurality of users,
during a first phase: receiving, from each of a first group of users, value offers to purchase an unspecified number of utility tokens;
generating a face value per utility token that optimizes a number of tokens and a total value of the tokens to be sold to the first group of users; and
enabling users to be added to the first group of users and enabling the first group of users to each increase their value offer such that the generated face value per utility token increases;
upon conclusion of the first phase, generating a final face value per utility token and facilitating a payment transaction in which each user of the first group of users pays the final face value per utility token and receives a number of utility tokens based on that user's value offer, each purchased utility token being cryptographically linked to a user; and
subsequent to the first phase: determining a dynamic face value of the utility tokens;
enabling the issuing individual and any user holding utility tokens to offer to sell utility tokens to a purchasing user at the dynamic face value;
facilitating a payment transaction in which the purchasing user pays the dynamic face value and receives the offered utility tokens which are then cryptographically linked to the purchasing user.
The additional element(s) in limitation A are recited at a high level of generality. The “cryptographically verifiable” and “cryptographically” elements of limitations A, C and K, generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As such, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole amounts to no more than implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment defined by high level recitations of a computer and the Internet. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea implemented on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 further recite divide first phase into number of stages and updating face value which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 further recite selling utility tokens which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 further recite determining face value of utility token which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 10 further recite creating and selling collectible tokens which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 further recite data embedded in the collectible tokens which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 8 further recite determining and calculating a global performance index which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 20190340689 A1), and further in view of Investopedia, Initial Coin Offering (ICO), 2020, retrieved on archive.org and Bendel (US 20120136807 A1).
With respect to claim 1, 9 and 11:
Gordon teaches (in italic):
verifying an identity of an issuing individual in respect of whom utility tokens are to be issued and creating a token issuer account in respect of that issuing individual. (In one embodiment, participants in tokenized securities offerings or purchasing of existing tokenized securities include individuals, entities, joint tenancy, brokers, dealers, trusts and other legally recognized forms of organization or regulatory status. At the registering stage, information required from an investor by the server computer of the tokenized securities offering entity includes legal name, country of residence, and email address. [0041])
subsequent to verification of the issuing individual's identity, causing a fixed number of utility tokens to be created, each utility token being associated with the issuing individual and being cryptographically verifiable. (In one exemplary embodiment, the BITE token offering entity initially offers a predetermined number of tokenized securities, for example, 3000 tokenized securities, the maximum number of BITE token holders is 1000, the minimum investment of each investor is $5000 equivalent Ethers, and the total investment is $15,000,000 equivalent Ethers. [0085])
receiving registration requests from a plurality of users and creating user accounts for each of the plurality of users. (In one embodiment, participants in tokenized securities offerings or purchasing of existing tokenized securities include individuals, entities, joint tenancy, brokers, dealers, trusts and other legally recognized forms of organization or regulatory status. At the registering stage, information required from an investor by the server computer of the tokenized securities offering entity includes legal name, country of residence, and email address. [0041])
during a first phase: receiving, from each of a first group of users, value offers to purchase an unspecified number of utility tokens. (The user device transmits an acceptance message after reviewing documents included in a securities token contract and sends Ethers to purchase securities token contract on the blockchain. [0094])
enabling users to be added to the first group of users. (The server computer of the BITE token offering entity is operable to access and synchronize with the accreditation information from different qualifying agencies via API and referral, and automatically create an up-to-date whitelist of accredited investors based on the accreditation information from different qualifying agencies.])
upon conclusion of the first phase, […] facilitating a payment transaction in which each user of the first group of users pays the final face value per utility token. (At purchase stage, a purchase order is completed by the registered user paying a certain amount of cryptocurrency or fiat currency for at least one securities token specified in at least one tokenized securities contract. In one embodiment, the certain amount of currency is transferred from the unique identified account or digital wallet of the registered user to an escrow account for the tokenized securities offering entity on the blockchain platform. [0060])
receives a number of utility tokens based on that user's value offer, each purchased utility token being cryptographically linked to a user. (In another embodiment, the tokenized securities contracts deployed on the blockchain platform provide an escrow function by holding cryptocurrencies or banking system representations of fiat currency, and securities tokens until a predetermined threshold is reached. The predetermined threshold can be a date, a number of investors invested, a minimum raise, or other metrics determined by the tokenized securities offering entity. After the predetermined threshold is reached, the certain amount of cryptocurrency paid by the registered user is released to a cryptocurrency account or a digital wallet of the tokenized securities offering entity, and the at least one securities token is released to the cryptocurrency account or digital wallet of the registered user corresponding to the at least one tokenized securities contract. [0060])
subsequent to the first phase: determining a dynamic face value of the utility tokens. (Tokenized securities purchased during the tokenized securities offering (or through existing manual means) are tradable on a secondary market usually after a rest period. After the rest period, there is a resale period when tokens are traded between existing tokenized securities holders and new investors or other existing holders. The tokenized securities seller then posts an ask on the blockchain-based securities token platform [0069 0096 0133])
enabling the issuing individual and any user holding utility tokens to offer to sell utility tokens to a purchasing user at the dynamic face value. (a buyer (e.g., a broker, an investor) accepts the ask on the blockchain-based securities token platform. If a buyer doesn't agree with the ask price, they can post a bid price back to the seller. The seller and buyer can send bid and ask prices back and forth until there is a mutual agreement where one party accepts the price of the other party. [0133])
facilitating a payment transaction in which the purchasing user pays the dynamic face value and receives the offered utility tokens which are then cryptographically linked to the purchasing user. (Once agreement has been made with the acceptance of an ask or bid price, the blockchain-based securities token platform then checks rules and creates an escrow contract with the seller and the buyer, performing as an escrow account for the seller and the buyer. The buyer makes payment to the escrow account, and the seller transfers the tokenized securities the buyer intends to buy to the escrow account. The escrow account checks rules and processes the payment, and then release the payment to the seller and the tokenized securities to the buyer. [0133])
Gordon does not explicitly teach generating a face value per utility token that optimizes a number of tokens and a total value of the tokens to be sold to the first group of users; generating a final face value per utility token. However,
Investopedia teaches generating a face value per utility token that optimizes a number of tokens and a total value of the tokens to be sold to the first group of users; generating a final face value per utility token. (In other cases, there is a static supply of ICO tokens but a dynamic funding goal—this means that the distribution of tokens to investors will be dependent upon the funds received (i.e. the more total funds received in the ICO, the higher the overall token price). [Page 5-6])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Gordon to generate face value that optimize number of tokens and value of tokens with the technique as disclosed by Investopedia to provide better way to achieve funding goal as Investopedia suggests.
Gordon in view of Investopedia does not explicitly teach enabling the first group of users to each increase their value offer such that the generated face value per utility token increases. However,
Bendel teaches enabling the first group of users to each increase their value offer such that the generated face value per utility token increases. (The investor interaction controller 44 interacts with the stock auctioning subsystem 60 for entering ISC stock bids on newly issued ISC stock, providing investors 32 with notifications (e.g., via the network 24 and each investor's respective computer 28) raises to their bids, accepted bids, and other information appropriate for bidders according to the type of auction being conducted. [0096])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Gordon in view of Investopedia to enable users to increase offer with the technique as disclosed by Bendel to achieve high profit as Bendel suggests [0006].
Claim 9, a system with the same scope as claim 1, is rejected.
Claim 11, a computer product with the same scope as claim 1, is rejected.
With respect to claim 2:
Gordon further teaches wherein first phase is divided into a number of stages. (there are 4 adjustments during a four-week presale period. There is a 2-week presale period before a 2-week official tokenized securities offering. [0087 0100])
Bendel further teaches the face value per utility token being the weighted average value offer and being updated at the end of each stage. (In particular, instead of such tracking factors (e.g., the ratios determined according to (a) immediately above) being based on current share prices, average of share prices over, e.g., a most recent time period such as a month may be used to replace each of the current share prices used in the ratio computations (a) immediately above. Alternatively/additionally, median share prices, or a technique for predicting share prices according to a price trend analysis may be used over such a recent time period. [0196])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to calculate average value offer with the technique as disclosed by Bendel to achieve high profit as Bendel suggests [0006].
With respect to claim 3:
Gordon further teaches subsequent to the first phase, the issuing individual and any user holding utility tokens offering to sell utility tokens in a secondary exchange. (Tokenized securities purchased during the tokenized securities offering (or through existing manual means) are tradable on a secondary market usually after a rest period. After the rest period, there is a resale period when tokens are traded between existing tokenized securities holders and new investors or other existing holders. The tokenized securities seller then posts an ask on the blockchain-based securities token platform [0069 0096 0133])
With respect to claim 4:
Gordon further teaches wherein the issuing individual can only sell utility tokens at the dynamic face value in the secondary exchange; the dynamic face value being initially the final face value determined at the end of the first phase and being continuously redetermined based on the higher of the last executed trade price or the lowest asking price in the secondary exchange. (a buyer (e.g., a broker, an investor) accepts the ask on the blockchain-based securities token platform. If a buyer doesn't agree with the ask price, they can post a bid price back to the seller. The seller and buyer can send bid and ask prices back and forth until there is a mutual agreement where one party accepts the price of the other party. [0133])
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Gordon", “Investopedia” and "Bendel" as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Williams (US 20200160320 A1).
With respect to claim 5 and 10:
Gordon in view of Investopedia and Bendel does not the following limitations.
However, Williams teaches:
subsequent to verification of the issuing individual's identity, causing a dynamic number of collectible tokens to be created, with each collectible token being associated with the issuing individual and being cryptographically verifiable. (The utility token may be a fungible token and the at least one consumptive use may include using the fungible token to mint a new non-fungible tokenized digital asset. Alternatively, the utility token 118 may represent a digital asset that is non-fungible. [0023-0024 0217])
enabling the issuing individual to offer to sell collectible tokens to a purchasing user in a secondary exchange; facilitating a payment transaction in which the purchasing user pays for the collectible tokens using utility tokens and/or fiat currency and receives the offered collectible tokens which are then cryptographically linked to the purchasing user. (The utility token may be a fungible token and the at least one consumptive use may include using the fungible token to purchase a non-fungible tokenized digital asset. [0021])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Gordon in view of Investopedia and Bendel to create and sell collectible tokens with the technique as disclosed by Williams to exchange and transfer assets in a timely manner and across vast distance as Williams suggests [0004].
Claim 10, a system with the same scope as claim 5, is rejected.
With respect to claim 6:
Williams further teaches wherein the collectible tokens include embedded data associated with the individual, the embedded data including an image or video of the individual, and a name of the individual. (For example, the utility token may be the Starcoin utility token that is a fungible token that may be used to purchase a non-fungible tokenized digital asset, such as a StarCard pass. A non-fungible token (NFT) may be a special type of cryptographic token which represents something unique. [0058])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to embed data into collectible tokens with the technique as disclosed by Williams to exchange and transfer assets in a timely manner and across vast distance as Williams suggests [0004].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Gordon", “Investopedia” and "Bendel" as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kundtz (US 20050261919 A1).
With respect to claim 7:
Gordon in view of Investopedia and Bendel does not teach determining a global performance index of the issuing individual, wherein the global performance index is a dynamic value determined by combining metrics obtained from the sale of utility tokens in a secondary exchange and metrics related to the social interaction between users and the issuing individual. However,
Kundtz teaches determining a global performance index of the issuing individual, wherein the global performance index is a dynamic value determined by combining metrics obtained from the sale of utility tokens in a secondary exchange and metrics related to the social interaction between users and the issuing individual. (Based on the summary rating (e.g., the summary rating of the second user) other users can evaluate the second user to determine the risks associated with entering into a transaction with the second user. The summary rating can identify a total summary rating, a total number of ratings received, a history of ratings, whether the user was ever prevented from carrying out transactions, whether the user failed to deliver products, whether the user is a verified user (as described fully below) and other such information. Additional information can be provide with the summary rating and/or a user's transaction history including, but not limited to, seller and buyer IDs, dates indicating completions of transaction, title of the transaction or auction, potentially an Internet link to access data and/or a web page of the transaction, and other such data. [0030])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Gordon in view of Investopedia and Bendel to determining a performance index with the technique as disclosed by Kundtz to prevent risks as Kundtz suggests [0030].
With respect to claim 8:
Kundtz further teaches wherein the global performance index is calculated based on statistics from the secondary exchange on which utility tokens are traded, statistics from the secondary exchange on which collectible tokens are traded, or statistics from the issuing individual's social contribution and interaction with other users. (Based on the summary rating (e.g., the summary rating of the second user) other users can evaluate the second user to determine the risks associated with entering into a transaction with the second user. The summary rating can identify a total summary rating, a total number of ratings received, a history of ratings, whether the user was ever prevented from carrying out transactions, whether the user failed to deliver products, whether the user is a verified user (as described fully below) and other such information. Additional information can be provide with the summary rating and/or a user's transaction history including, but not limited to, seller and buyer IDs, dates indicating completions of transaction, title of the transaction or auction, potentially an Internet link to access data and/or a web page of the transaction, and other such data.[0030])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to calculate a performance index with the technique as disclosed by Kundtz to prevent risks as Kundtz suggests [0030].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190012660 A1: Systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media providing a systems architecture for creating and distributing asset-backed tokens are disclosed. In embodiments, a server receives a request that identifies a value of assets of a first entity that are offered to back a value of tokens distributed via an Internet-based market platform. The server creates an offering and establishes a smart contract corresponding to the offering, and the offering is presented, via an Internet-based market platform, to market participants who may purchase a portion of the asset-backed tokens to participate in the offering. The server creates cryptowallets for receiving payments of cryptocurrency from the market participants for purchases of the asset-backed tokens, and records information identifying quantities tokens purchased by each of the market participants. The server provides funds received from the purchases to the first entity.
US 20020198815 A1: An Institution wishing to trade securities may connect to an Electronic Communication Network through a network interface. The Institution may then enter orders to buy and sell securities, display such orders to all subscribers to the system, and automatically match and execute the orders. The Institution may designate a broker to sponsor a particular trade or group of trades. The execution of these orders and other trade-related services are provided to the Institution by the Electronic Communication Network operator. The Institution pays commissions to the Electronic Communication Network operator for trade executions. The Electronic Communication Network operator then reports to the sponsoring brokers the identity of the designating Institutions and the sponsored trading activities executed by the Electronic Communication Network operator for the designating Institutions. The Electronic Communication Network operator also pays a portion of the commission for the sponsored trades to the sponsoring brokers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHENG XIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 M-F.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/Z.X./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698