DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/07/2026.
a. Claims 1, 9, 16 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-23 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/348,699, filed on 06/03/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 21 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites the limitation “Nkamoto index”, it should read “Nakamoto index”. Claim 21 recites similar limitation to claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-8 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 9-15 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 16-23 are directed to a computer implemented method
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 1 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A method comprising:
[B] generating, by a computing device, based on a distribution of a plurality of digital assets, one or more records stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system,
[C] wherein the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of the plurality of digital assets being associated with one or more identifiers and data indicative of an attribute of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets,
[D] wherein the attribute is associated with each of the one or more identifiers associated with the plurality of digital assets;
[E] causing, based on the generation of the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes, a record of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets being associated with an identifier of the one or more identifiers to be generated in a digital wallet associated with each identifier,
[F] wherein the one or more identifiers are associated with the one or more digital wallets;
[G] continuously monitoring, based on verifying one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data according to one or more digital operations performed by at least one digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets, one or more parameters associated with at least one indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and
[H] modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to dynamically update to adjust the corresponding attribute of each digital asset according to the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset,
[I] wherein the attribute associated with a first identifier of the one or more identifiers is adjusted based on the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset changing from being associated with a second identifier of the one or more identifiers to being associated with a third identifier of the one or more identifiers.
Claim 1 recites: generating records associated with assets, and identifiers associated with assets and attributes associated with identifiers ([A]-[D]); generating identifiers and associating the identifiers with wallets ([E]-[F]); monitoring parameters associated with ownership of assets ([G]); and modifying parameters and identifiers ([H]-[I]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at a system for adjusting/modifying data associated with assets.
This overall combination, covers agreements in the form of sales activities, fundamental economic practice of recordkeeping of transaction data because the claim language recites, generating records of assets, monitoring, adjusting/modifying records based on ownership data associated with the asset. Such limitation falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations covers continuously monitoring parameters of associated of ownership of asset, and such activities can be performed by human using pen and paper. The human can make observation based on the current information regarding asset and its owner (i.e., asset and its owner), and the human can make judgment if the asset has change ownership, and update the record with the appropriate ownership record. Additionally, such limitations expresses observation, and judgement, which falls under Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the additional elements “by a computing device,” “digital,” “stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes,” and “cryptographically hashed transaction” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of adjusting/modifying data associated with assets. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: by a computing device ([B]), digital ([B]-[I]), stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system ([B]), stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction ([C]), stored on the one or more computing nodes ([C], [E], [H]) , and cryptographically hashed transaction ([G]-[H]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [B]-[I]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of adjusting/modifying data associated with assets could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1 are deemed ineligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 9 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A method comprising:
[B] generating, by a computing device, based on a trigger, one or more records stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system,
[C] wherein the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of a plurality of digital assets being associated with one or more identifiers and data indicative of an attribute of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets,
[D] wherein the attribute is associated with each of the one or more identifiers associated with the plurality of digital assets;
[E] causing, based on the generation of the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes, a record of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets being associated with an identifier of the one or more identifiers to be generated in a digital wallet associated with each identifier,
[F] wherein the one or more identifiers are associated with the one or more digital wallets;
[G] determining, based on verifying one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data according to one or more digital operations performed by at least one digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets, one or more parameters associated with at least one indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets;
[H] determining, based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a measure of decentralization;
[I] refraining from modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the measure of decentralization satisfying a threshold, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and
[J] sending a notification comprising an indication of the measure of decentralization satisfying the threshold.
Claim 9 recites: generating records associated with assets, and identifiers associated with assets and attributes associated with identifiers ([A]-[D]); generating identifiers and associating the identifiers with wallets ([E]-[F]); determine parameters associated with ownership of assets ([G]); and, determine a measure of decentralization, and refrain from modifying based on the measure of decentration, and sending a notification ([H]-[J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at a system for adjusting/modifying data associated with assets.
This overall combination, covers agreements in the form of sales activities, fundamental economic practice of recordkeeping of transaction data because the claim language recites, generating records of assets, monitoring, adjusting/modifying records based on ownership data associated with the asset. Such limitation falls under which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 9 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations covers determining parameters of associated of ownership of asset, and such activities can be performed by human using pen and paper. The human can make observation based on the current information regarding asset and its owner (i.e., asset and its owner), and the human can make judgment if the asset has change ownership, and update the record with the appropriate ownership record. Additionally, such limitations expresses observation, and judgement, which falls under Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 9 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the additional elements “by a computing device,” “digital,” “stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes,” and “cryptographically hashed transaction” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of adjusting/modifying data associated with assets. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: by a computing device ([B]), digital ([C]-[I]), stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system ([B]), stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction ([C]), stored on the one or more computing nodes ([C], [E], [I]) , and cryptographically hashed transaction ([G], [I]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 9 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [B]-[I]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of adjusting/modifying data associated with assets could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 9 are deemed ineligible.
Regarding Claim 16:
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 16 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A method comprising:
[B] generating, by a computing device, based on a distribution of a plurality of digital assets, one or more records stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system,
[C] wherein the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of a plurality of digital assets being associated with one or more identifiers and data indicative of an attribute of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets,
[D] wherein the attribute is associated with each of the one or more identifiers associated with the plurality of digital assets;
[E] causing, based on the generation of the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes, a record of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets being associated with an identifier of the one or more identifiers to be generated in a digital wallet associated with each identifier,
[F] wherein the one or more identifiers are associated with the one or more digital wallets;
[G] continuously monitoring, based on verifying one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data according to one or more digital operations performed by at least one digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets, one or more parameters associated with at least one indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets;
[H] determining, based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a measure of decentralization; and
[I] modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the measure of decentralization not satisfying a threshold, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to dynamically adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets until the measure of decentralization satisfies the threshold,
[J] wherein the attribute associated with a first identifier of the one or more identifiers is adjusted based on the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset changing from being associated with a second identifier of the one or more identifiers to being associated with a third identifier of the one or more identifiers.
Claim 16 recites: generating records associated with assets, and identifiers associated with assets and attributes associated with identifiers ([A]-[D]); generating identifiers and associating the identifiers with wallets ([E]-[F]); monitoring parameters associated with ownership of assets ([G]); determining measure of decentralization ([H]); and, modifying parameters and identifiers ([I]-[J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at a system for adjusting/modifying data associated with assets.
This overall combination, covers agreements in the form of sales activities, fundamental economic practice of recordkeeping of transaction data because the claim language recites, generating records of assets, monitoring, adjusting/modifying records based on ownership data associated with the asset. Such limitation falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 16 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations covers continuously monitoring parameters of associated of ownership of asset, and such activities can be performed by human using pen and paper. The human can make observation based on the current information regarding asset and its owner (i.e., asset and its owner), and the human can make judgment if the asset has change ownership, and update the record with the appropriate ownership record. Additionally, such limitations expresses observation, and judgement, which falls under Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 16 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the additional elements “by a computing device,” “digital,” “stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes,” and “cryptographically hashed transaction” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of adjusting/modifying data associated with assets. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: by a computing device ([B]), digital ([B]-[J]), stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system ([B]), stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction ([C]), stored on the one or more computing nodes ([C], [E], [I]) , and cryptographically hashed transaction ([G], [I]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 16 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [B]-[J]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of adjusting/modifying data associated with assets could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 16 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-23 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 2, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the plurality of digital assets comprises a cryptocurrency.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a number of digital assets owned or controlled, a period of time for which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is owned or controlled, an entity from which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, a method by which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, or a price paid for at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying parameters associated with ownership of assets. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: an individual associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a person associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, or a wallet address associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying criterion associated ownership of asset(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: a voting right, a monetary value, an ability to distribute the digital asset, whitelisting wallet addresses, blacklisting wallet addresses, staking, or combinations thereof.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying attributes associated with asset(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] adjusting the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets based on a measure of decentralization comprising one or more of a Gini index, a Nakamoto index, a Shapley-Shubik power index, a Banzhaf power index, or combinations thereof.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting the attributes of each asset based on measure of decentralization. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein adjusting the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of:
[B] adjusting the attribute within each digital asset;
[C] adjusting a record associated with each digital asset;
[D] adjusting a record associated with at least one wallet address of one or more wallet addresses;
[E] increasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset;
[F] decreasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset; or
[G] increasing a voting right associated with a first subset of the plurality of digital assets and decreasing a voting right associated with a second subset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting the attributes of each asset based on measure of decentralization. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] storing a record in a blockchain, wherein the record comprises an indication of a number of the plurality of digital assets associated with one or more entities; and
[B] storing, in a database, a registry of one or more entities that are associated with one or more wallet addresses.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of storing data. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the trigger comprises one or more of: an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration prior to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration subsequent to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, or a predetermined time interval.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying triggers for generating records. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the plurality of digital assets comprises a cryptocurrency.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a number of digital assets owned or controlled, a period of time for which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is owned or controlled, an entity from which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, a method by which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, or a price paid for at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying parameters associated with ownership of assets. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: an individual associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a person associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, or a wallet address associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying criterion associated ownership of asset(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] adjusting the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets based on a measure of decentralization comprising one or more of a Gini index, a N[a]kmoto index, a Shapley-Shubik power index, a Banzhaf power index, or combinations thereof.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting the attributes of each asset based on measure of decentralization. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: a voting right, a monetary value, an ability to distribute the digital asset, whitelisting wallet addresses, blacklisting wallet addresses, staking, or combinations thereof.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying attributes associated with asset(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the trigger comprises one or more of: an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration prior to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration subsequent to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, or a predetermined time interval.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying triggers for generating records. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the plurality of digital assets comprises a cryptocurrency.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a number of digital assets owned or controlled, a period of time for which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is owned or controlled, an entity from which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, a method by which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, or a price paid for at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying parameters associated with ownership of assets. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: an individual associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a person associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, or a wallet address associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying criterion associated ownership of asset(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 21, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] adjusting the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets based on a measure of decentralization comprising one or more of a Gini index, a N[a]kamoto index, a Shapley-Shubik power index, a Banzhaf power index, or combinations thereof.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting the attributes of each asset based on measure of decentralization. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 22, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: a voting right, a monetary value, an ability to distribute the digital asset, whitelisting wallet addresses, blacklisting wallet addresses, staking, or combinations thereof.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying attributes associated with asset(s). In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 23, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein adjusting, based on the measure of decentralization not satisfying the threshold, the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of:
[B] adjusting the attribute within each digital asset;
[C] adjusting a record associated with each digital asset;
[D] adjusting a record associated with at least one wallet address of one or more wallet addresses;
[E] increasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset;
[F] decreasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset; or
[G] increasing a voting right associated with a first subset of the plurality of digital assets and decreasing a voting right associated with a second subset of the plurality of digital assets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting the attributes of each asset based on measure of decentralization. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMarinis (US 20170330174 A1), in view of Gordon (US 11164254 B1).
Regarding Claim 1. DeMarinis discloses:
generating, by a computing device, based on a distribution of a plurality of digital assets, one or more records stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system, [see at least (0007) record on the blockchain, by transmitting one or more electronic messages to the distributed blockchain computer system, ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset (0008) The server computer system may further be configured to perform actions that include: distributing at least one voting token (i.e., digital asset) to a digital wallet of each of the plurality of owners or their proxies. (0149) casting the vote may include generating a transaction including a voting token, a source blockchain address corresponding to the voter's digital wallet and a destination blockchain address corresponding to the blockchain address for a selected voting option]
wherein the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of the plurality of digital assets being associated with one or more identifiers anddata indicative of an attribute of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, [see at least (0003) Computer nodes maintain the blockchain and cryptographically validate each new block and thus the transactions contained in the corresponding block. (0004) The integrity (e.g., confidence that a previously recorded transaction has not been modified) of the entire blockchain is maintained because each block refers to or includes a cryptographic hash value of the prior block. Each block's hash is derived from the contents of that block (0041) asset information memory 128 may store the name of each asset (e.g., shares of particular type), issuer information, total issued number of the asset, etc. for which ownership is recorded in the blockchain (i.e., identifiers associated with the asset). (0075) Other asset information that may be recorded on the blockchain system 404 includes securities ownership related information such as voting rights (i.e., attribute of digital asset) and proxy assignments.]
wherein the attribute is associated with each of the one or more identifiers associated with the plurality of digital assets; [see at least (0030) information regarding the ownership of particular assets (e.g., shares in a company, etc.) are stored in a blockchain, (0041) asset information memory 128 may store the name of each asset (e.g., shares of particular type), issuer information, total issued number of the asset, etc. for which ownership is recorded in the blockchain. (0095) The number of votes for which a shareholder is entitled to may be determined based upon a shareholder's number of shares and a specified vote ratio. A vote ratio specifies how many votes are to be allocated per security (e.g., per share), and may be configured per type of security, per group of securities or for all securities of an issuer.]
causing, based on the generation of the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes, a record of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets being associated with an identifier of the one or more identifiers to be generated in a digital wallet associated with each identifier, wherein the one or more identifiers are associated with the one or more digital wallets; [see at least (0092) digital wallets 610, 630 and 640 also include information for a shareholder voting application (e.g., such as application 425) implemented using the immutable record of asset ownership on blockchain system 404. (0093) user wallet 610 includes voting rights token information 616 for security A and voting rights token information 618 for security B. Voting rights token information 616 and 618 each include a blockchain address to which corresponding voting rights transactions are addressed to, and the number of voting rights tokens of the particular security assigned to the owner of the digital wallet.]
continuously monitoring, based on verifying one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data according to one or more digital operations performed by at least one digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets, one or more parameters associated with at least one indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and [see at least Fig. 3 and (0069) At operation 310, the change of asset ownership, if any, is recorded in the blockchain. In the first example discussed above in relation to operation 308, no change takes place for the asset ownership, and therefore the ownership is not updated. In the second example discussed above, the asset buyback affects ownership levels. Therefore, new ownership levels are written to the blockchain as a transaction. For example, a new asset ownership information with updated ownership amounts can be recorded on the blockchain. As described above, the submitted transactions are periodically “mined” by participating computers in the blockchain to add new blocks to the blockchain.]
[…] wherein the attribute associated with a first identifier of the one or more identifiers is adjusted based on the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset changing from being associated with a second identifier of the one or more identifiers to being associated with a third identifier of the one or more identifiers. [see at least Fig. 3 and (0069) At operation 310, the change of asset ownership, if any, is recorded in the blockchain. In the first example discussed above in relation to operation 308, no change takes place for the asset ownership, and therefore the ownership is not updated. In the second example discussed above, the asset buyback affects ownership levels. Therefore, new ownership levels are written to the blockchain as a transaction. For example, a new asset ownership information with updated ownership amounts can be recorded on the blockchain. As described above, the submitted transactions are periodically “mined” by participating computers in the blockchain to add new blocks to the blockchain.]
The DeMarinis reference discloses digital assets and identifiers associated with digital asset. However, the DeMarinis does not expressly disclose:
modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to dynamically adjust the corresponding attribute of each digital asset according to the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset, […]
Nonetheless, Gordon discloses dynamically adjusting data:
modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to dynamically adjust the corresponding attribute of each digital asset according to the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset, […] [(64/56-63) if a poll is open and a shareholder purchases additional shares while the poll is open, the platform is operable to dynamically adjust voting results in real time by altering the number of shares and/or the voting rights of the share class (e.g., preferred stock with a 2:1 voting right). These capabilities of the platform advantageously allow polling to be used for voting for board members, share classes approving board resolutions, and/or other governance questions that require feedback from the owners of the company. (reads on: number of shares is an identifier)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis to include the features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon teaches dynamically updating data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by DeMarinis as well as Gordon would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeMarinis/Gordon.
Regarding Claim 2. DeMarinis, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 1. Gordon further discloses:
wherein the digital asset comprises a cryptocurrency. [(14/15-17) The user device is then operable to purchase at least one securities token via the cryptocurrency account or digital wallet of the investor.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Gordon to include the additional features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis in view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon further teaches dynamically updating data and digital asset being cryptocurrencies. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 3. DeMarinis, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 1. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a number of digital assets owned or controlled, a period of time for which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is owned or controlled, an entity from which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, a method by which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, or a price paid for at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets. [(0050) the software may be used to retrieve and output to the user, the current ownership information … Information such as the number of assets of a particular type that an owner of a digital wallet owns.]
Regarding Claim 4. DeMarinis, Gordon discloses the limitations of claim 1. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: an individual associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a person associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, or a wallet address associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets. [see at least (0007) The server computer system is configured to: record on the blockchain … ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset; and to configure, for each of one or more of the plurality of owners, a digital wallet corresponding to one of said groups of one or more units of the asset. (0061) at operation 302, the blockchain is configured with asset ownership information. This operation includes recording the ownership of one or more types of assets]
Regarding Claim 5. DeMarinis, Gordon discloses the limitations of claim 1. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: a voting right, a monetary value, an ability to distribute the digital asset, whitelisting wallet addresses, blacklisting wallet addresses, staking, or combinations thereof. [see at least (0040) enable other participants in the system to send transactions to that user. (0093) each include a blockchain address to which corresponding voting rights transactions are addressed to, and the number of voting rights tokens]
Regarding Claim 7. DeMarinis, Gordon discloses the limitations of claim 1. DeMarinis further discloses:
adjusting the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: adjusting the attribute within each digital asset; adjusting a record associated with each digital asset; adjusting a record associated with at least one wallet address of one or more wallet addresses; increasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset; decreasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset; or increasing a voting right associated with a first subset of the plurality of digital assets and decreasing a voting right associated with a second subset of the plurality of digital assets. [(64/56-63) if a poll is open and a shareholder purchases additional shares while the poll is open, the platform is operable to dynamically adjust voting results in real time by altering the number of shares and/or the voting rights (i.e., increasing or decreasing voting rights) of the share class (e.g., preferred stock with a 2:1 voting right). These capabilities of the platform advantageously allow polling to be used for voting for board members, share classes approving board resolutions, and/or other governance questions that require feedback from the owners of the company.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Gordon to include the additional features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon further teaches dynamically updating data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8. DeMarinis, Gordon discloses the limitations of claim 1. DeMarinis further discloses:
storing a record in a blockchain, wherein the record comprises an indication of a number of the plurality digital assets associated with one or more entities; and [(0041) Asset information memory 128 stores information regarding assets related to operations performed by computer system 102 while utilizing blockchain system 104. For example, asset information memory 128 may store the name of each asset (e.g., shares of particular type), issuer information, total issued number of the asset, etc. for which ownership is recorded in the blockchain.]
storing, in a database, a registry of one or more entities that are associated with one or more wallet addresses. ]see at least Fig.4 and (0017) Internal databases, such as, for example, one or more of databases 426-432 shown in FIG. 4 may be configured. Digital wallets may be created in wallet memory 426 for each shareholder as represented in the shareholding list recorded in the blockchain. (reads on: the wallet addresses associated with entities are stored in a database]
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMarinis in view of Gordon, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hodgman (US 20190028491 A1).
Regarding Claim 6. DeMarinis, Gordon discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeMarinis, in view of Gordon discloses adjusting record associated with digital asset. However, the above combination does not expressly disclose:
adjusting the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets based on a measure of decentralization comprising one or more a Gini index, a Nakamoto index, a Shapley-Shubik power index, a Banzhaf power index, or combinations thereof.
Nonetheless, Hodgman discloses:
adjusting the attribute associated with each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets based on a measure of decentralization comprising one or more a Gini index, a Nakamoto index, a Shapley-Shubik power index, a Banzhaf power index, or combinations thereof. [see at least (0041) Applying this Gini coefficient calculation to the embodiments described herein, a high Gini coefficient indicates that most processes are heavily concentrated in particular paths. Deviations therefore suggest a binary is used for a malicious purpose. (0043) the Gini coefficient may suggest that a particular process is characterized by a degree of inequality. This degree of inequality can then be used to infer that the use of a non-malicious binary could be for malicious purposes.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Gordon to include the features of Hodgman. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of adjusting record associated with digital asset in Hodgman with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Gordon to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Hodgman teaches adjusting records associated with digital asset. Moreover, since the features disclosed by DeMarinis as well as Gordon would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeMarinis, in view of Gordon/Hodgman.
Claim 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMarinis (US 20170330174 A1), in view of Hodgman (US 20190028491 A1), in further view of Gordon (US 11164254 B1).
Regarding Claim 9. DeMarinis discloses:
generating, by a computing device, based on a trigger, one or more records stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system, [see at least (0007) record on the blockchain, by transmitting one or more electronic messages to the distributed blockchain computer system, ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset (0008) The server computer system may further be configured to perform actions that include: distributing at least one voting token (i.e., digital asset) to a digital wallet of each of the plurality of owners or their proxies. (0149) casting the vote may include generating a transaction including a voting token, a source blockchain address corresponding to the voter's digital wallet and a destination blockchain address corresponding to the blockchain address for a selected voting option]
wherein the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of a plurality of digital assets being associated with one or more identifiers and data indicative of an attribute of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, [see at least (0003) Computer nodes maintain the blockchain and cryptographically validate each new block and thus the transactions contained in the corresponding block. (0004) The integrity (e.g., confidence that a previously recorded transaction has not been modified) of the entire blockchain is maintained because each block refers to or includes a cryptographic hash value of the prior block. Each block's hash is derived from the contents of that block (0041) asset information memory 128 may store the name of each asset (e.g., shares of particular type), issuer information, total issued number of the asset, etc. for which ownership is recorded in the blockchain (i.e., identifiers associated with the asset). (0075) Other asset information that may be recorded on the blockchain system 404 includes securities ownership related information such as voting rights (i.e., attribute of digital asset) and proxy assignments.]
wherein the attribute is associated with each of the one or more identifiers associated with the plurality of digital assets; [see at least (0030) information regarding the ownership of particular assets (e.g., shares in a company, etc.) are stored in a blockchain, (0041) asset information memory 128 may store the name of each asset (e.g., shares of particular type), issuer information, total issued number of the asset, etc. for which ownership is recorded in the blockchain. (0095) The number of votes for which a shareholder is entitled to may be determined based upon a shareholder's number of shares and a specified vote ratio. A vote ratio specifies how many votes are to be allocated per security (e.g., per share), and may be configured per type of security, per group of securities or for all securities of an issuer.]
causing, based on the generation of the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes, a record of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets being associated with an identifier of the one or more identifiers to be generated in a digital wallet associated with each identifier, wherein the one or more identifiers are associated with the one or more digital wallets; [see at least (0092) digital wallets 610, 630 and 640 also include information for a shareholder voting application (e.g., such as application 425) implemented using the immutable record of asset ownership on blockchain system 404. (0093) user wallet 610 includes voting rights token information 616 for security A and voting rights token information 618 for security B. Voting rights token information 616 and 618 each include a blockchain address to which corresponding voting rights transactions are addressed to, and the number of voting rights tokens of the particular security assigned to the owner of the digital wallet.]
determining, based on verifying one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data according to one or more digital operations performed by at least one digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets, one or more parameters associated with at least one indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; [see a t least (0056) The number of units information can be determined from the blockchain, and, in some embodiments, may be stored in, or in association with, the corresponding digital wallet (e.g., in order to reduce the need to access the blockchain for obtaining frequently used information). (0068) the ownership information can be used to determine the distribution of votes in accordance with the asset ownership determined using the ownership information obtained from the blockchain. In another embodiment, the ownership information obtained from the blockchain is used to determine an asset buyback.]
determining, based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, […] [see a t least (0056) The number of units information can be determined from the blockchain, and, in some embodiments, may be stored in, or in association with, the corresponding digital wallet (e.g., in order to reduce the need to access the blockchain for obtaining frequently used information). (0068) the ownership information can be used to determine the distribution of votes in accordance with the asset ownership determined using the ownership information obtained from the blockchain. In another embodiment, the ownership information obtained from the blockchain is used to determine an asset buyback.]
The DeMarinis reference discloses digital assets and identifiers associated with digital asset. However, the DeMarinis does not expressly disclose:
[…] a measure of decentralization;
refraining from modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the measure of decentralization satisfying a threshold, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to update to adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and
sending a notification comprising an indication of the measure of decentralization satisfying the threshold.
Nonetheless, Hodgman discloses:
[…] a measure of decentralization; [see at least (0041) Applying this Gini coefficient calculation to the embodiments described herein, a high Gini coefficient indicates that most processes are heavily concentrated in particular paths. Deviations therefore suggest a binary is used for a malicious purpose. (0043) the Gini coefficient may suggest that a particular process is characterized by a degree of inequality. This degree of inequality can then be used to infer that the use of a non-malicious binary could be for malicious purposes.]
[…] based on the measure of decentralization satisfying a threshold, […] [see at least (0041) Applying this Gini coefficient calculation to the embodiments described herein, a high Gini coefficient indicates that most processes are heavily concentrated in particular paths. Deviations therefore suggest a binary is used for a malicious purpose. (0043) the Gini coefficient may suggest that a particular process is characterized by a degree of inequality. This degree of inequality can then be used to infer that the use of a non-malicious binary could be for malicious purposes.]
sending a notification comprising an indication of the measure of decentralization satisfying the threshold. [(0073) if the process is associated with a Herfindahl concentration above a threshold and/or a Gini coefficient above a threshold, the analysis module 110 may conclude the process is malicious or least likely malicious (i.e., based on condition of stratifying a threshold, the analysis module 110 gives a result)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis to include the features of Hodgman. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of adjusting data associated with digital assets in Hodgman with the digital assets of DeMarinis to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Hodgman teaches adjusting data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by DeMarinis as well as Hodgman would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeMarinis/Hodgman.
The combination of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman discloses adjusting record associated with digital asset using measure of decentralization. However, the above combination does not expressly disclose:
refraining from modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and […] the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to update to adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and
However, Gordon discloses dynamically adjusting result:
refraining from modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and […] the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to update to adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and [(64/56-63) if a poll is open and a shareholder purchases additional shares while the poll is open, the platform is operable to dynamically adjust voting results in real time by altering the number of shares and/or the voting rights of the share class (e.g., preferred stock with a 2:1 voting right). These capabilities of the platform advantageously allow polling to be used for voting for board members, share classes approving board resolutions, and/or other governance questions that require feedback from the owners of the company. (reads on: number of shares is an identifier)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman to include the features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon teaches dynamically updating data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman as well as Gordon would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman/Gordon.
Regarding Claim 10. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitation of claim 9. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the trigger comprises one or more of: an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration prior to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration subsequent to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, or a predetermined time interval.[see at least (0007) record on the blockchain, by transmitting one or more electronic messages to the distributed blockchain computer system, ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset (0008) The server computer system may further be configured to perform actions that include: distributing at least one voting token (i.e., digital asset) to a digital wallet of each of the plurality of owners or their proxies. (0149) casting the vote may include generating a transaction including a voting token, a source blockchain address corresponding to the voter's digital wallet and a destination blockchain address corresponding to the blockchain address for a selected voting option]
Regarding Claim 11. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. Gordon further discloses:
wherein the digital asset comprises a cryptocurrency. [(14/15-17) The user device is then operable to purchase at least one securities token via the cryptocurrency account or digital wallet of the investor.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to include the additional features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon further teaches dynamically updating data and digital asset being cryptocurrencies. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a number of digital assets owned or controlled, a period of time for which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is owned or controlled, an entity from which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, a method by which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, or a price paid for at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets. [(0050) the software may be used to retrieve and output to the user, the current ownership information … Information such as the number of assets of a particular type that an owner of a digital wallet owns.]
Regarding Claim 13. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: an individual associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a person associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, or a wallet address associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets. [see at least (0007) The server computer system is configured to: record on the blockchain … ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset; and to configure, for each of one or more of the plurality of owners, a digital wallet corresponding to one of said groups of one or more units of the asset. (0061) at operation 302, the blockchain is configured with asset ownership information. This operation includes recording the ownership of one or more types of assets]
Regarding Claim 14. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. Hodgman further discloses:
wherein the measure of decentralization comprises one of more of: a Gini index, a N[a]kamoto index, a Shapley-Shubik power index, a Banzhaf power index, or combinations thereof. [see at least (0041) Applying this Gini coefficient calculation to the embodiments described herein, a high Gini coefficient indicates that most processes are heavily concentrated in particular paths. Deviations therefore suggest a binary is used for a malicious purpose. (0043) the Gini coefficient may suggest that a particular process is characterized by a degree of inequality. This degree of inequality can then be used to infer that the use of a non-malicious binary could be for malicious purposes.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to include the additional features of Hodgman. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of adjusting record associated with digital asset in Hodgman with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Hodgman further teaches adjusting records associated with digital asset. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: a voting right, a monetary value, an ability to distribute the digital asset, whitelisting wallet addresses, blacklisting wallet addresses, staking, or combinations thereof. [see at least (0040) enable other participants in the system to send transactions to that user. (0093) each include a blockchain address to which corresponding voting rights transactions are addressed to, and the number of voting rights tokens]
Regarding Claim 16. DeMarinis discloses:
generating, by a computing device, based on a trigger, one or more records stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system, [see at least (0007) record on the blockchain, by transmitting one or more electronic messages to the distributed blockchain computer system, ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset (0008) The server computer system may further be configured to perform actions that include: distributing at least one voting token (i.e., digital asset) to a digital wallet of each of the plurality of owners or their proxies. (0149) casting the vote may include generating a transaction including a voting token, a source blockchain address corresponding to the voter's digital wallet and a destination blockchain address corresponding to the blockchain address for a selected voting option]
wherein the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of a plurality of digital assets being associated with one or more identifiers and data indicative of an attribute of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, [see at least (0003) Computer nodes maintain the blockchain and cryptographically validate each new block and thus the transactions contained in the corresponding block. (0004) The integrity (e.g., confidence that a previously recorded transaction has not been modified) of the entire blockchain is maintained because each block refers to or includes a cryptographic hash value of the prior block. Each block's hash is derived from the contents of that block (0041) asset information memory 128 may store the name of each asset (e.g., shares of particular type), issuer information, total issued number of the asset, etc. for which ownership is recorded in the blockchain (i.e., identifiers associated with the asset). (0075) Other asset information that may be recorded on the blockchain system 404 includes securities ownership related information such as voting rights (i.e., attribute of digital asset) and proxy assignments.]
wherein the attribute is associated with each of the one or more identifiers associated with the plurality of digital assets; [see at least (0030) information regarding the ownership of particular assets (e.g., shares in a company, etc.) are stored in a blockchain, (0041) asset information memory 128 may store the name of each asset (e.g., shares of particular type), issuer information, total issued number of the asset, etc. for which ownership is recorded in the blockchain. (0095) The number of votes for which a shareholder is entitled to may be determined based upon a shareholder's number of shares and a specified vote ratio. A vote ratio specifies how many votes are to be allocated per security (e.g., per share), and may be configured per type of security, per group of securities or for all securities of an issuer.]
causing, based on the generation of the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes, a record of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets being associated with an identifier of the one or more identifiers to be generated in a digital wallet associated with each identifier, wherein the one or more identifiers are associated with the one or more digital wallets; [see at least (0092) digital wallets 610, 630 and 640 also include information for a shareholder voting application (e.g., such as application 425) implemented using the immutable record of asset ownership on blockchain system 404. (0093) user wallet 610 includes voting rights token information 616 for security A and voting rights token information 618 for security B. Voting rights token information 616 and 618 each include a blockchain address to which corresponding voting rights transactions are addressed to, and the number of voting rights tokens of the particular security assigned to the owner of the digital wallet.]
continuously monitoring, based on verifying one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data according to one or more digital operations performed by at least one digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets, one or more parameters associated with at least one indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; [see at least Fig. 3 and (0069) At operation 310, the change of asset ownership, if any, is recorded in the blockchain. In the first example discussed above in relation to operation 308, no change takes place for the asset ownership, and therefore the ownership is not updated. In the second example discussed above, the asset buyback affects ownership levels. Therefore, new ownership levels are written to the blockchain as a transaction. For example, a new asset ownership information with updated ownership amounts can be recorded on the blockchain. As described above, the submitted transactions are periodically “mined” by participating computers in the blockchain to add new blocks to the blockchain.]
determining, based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, […] [see a t least (0056) The number of units information can be determined from the blockchain, and, in some embodiments, may be stored in, or in association with, the corresponding digital wallet (e.g., in order to reduce the need to access the blockchain for obtaining frequently used information). (0068) the ownership information can be used to determine the distribution of votes in accordance with the asset ownership determined using the ownership information obtained from the blockchain. In another embodiment, the ownership information obtained from the blockchain is used to determine an asset buyback.]
The DeMarinis reference discloses digital assets and identifiers associated with digital asset. However, the DeMarinis does not expressly disclose:
[…] a measure of decentralization; and
modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the measure of decentralization not satisfying a threshold, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to update to adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and
sending a notification comprising an indication of the measure of decentralization satisfying the threshold.
Nonetheless, Hodgman discloses:
[…] a measure of decentralization; [see at least (0041) Applying this Gini coefficient calculation to the embodiments described herein, a high Gini coefficient indicates that most processes are heavily concentrated in particular paths. Deviations therefore suggest a binary is used for a malicious purpose. (0043) the Gini coefficient may suggest that a particular process is characterized by a degree of inequality. This degree of inequality can then be used to infer that the use of a non-malicious binary could be for malicious purposes.]
[…] based on the measure of decentralization satisfying a threshold, […] [see at least (0041) Applying this Gini coefficient calculation to the embodiments described herein, a high Gini coefficient indicates that most processes are heavily concentrated in particular paths. Deviations therefore suggest a binary is used for a malicious purpose. (0043) the Gini coefficient may suggest that a particular process is characterized by a degree of inequality. This degree of inequality can then be used to infer that the use of a non-malicious binary could be for malicious purposes.]
sending a notification comprising an indication of the measure of decentralization satisfying the threshold. [(0073) if the process is associated with a Herfindahl concentration above a threshold and/or a Gini coefficient above a threshold, the analysis module 110 may conclude the process is malicious or least likely malicious (i.e., based on condition of stratifying a threshold, the analysis module 110 gives a result)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis to include the features of Hodgman. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of adjusting data associated with digital assets in Hodgman with the digital assets of DeMarinis to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Hodgman teaches adjusting data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by DeMarinis as well as Hodgman would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeMarinis/Hodgman.
The combination of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman discloses adjusting record associated with digital asset using measure of decentralization. However, the above combination does not expressly disclose:
refraining from modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and […] the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to update to adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and
However, Gordon discloses dynamically adjusting result:
refraining from modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and […] the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to update to adjust the corresponding attribute of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and [(64/56-63) if a poll is open and a shareholder purchases additional shares while the poll is open, the platform is operable to dynamically adjust voting results in real time by altering the number of shares and/or the voting rights of the share class (e.g., preferred stock with a 2:1 voting right). These capabilities of the platform advantageously allow polling to be used for voting for board members, share classes approving board resolutions, and/or other governance questions that require feedback from the owners of the company. (reads on: number of shares is an identifier)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman to include the features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon teaches dynamically updating data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman as well as Gordon would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman/Gordon.
Regarding Claim 17. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitation of claim 16. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the trigger comprises one or more of: an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration prior to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, a duration subsequent to an initial distribution of the plurality of digital assets, or a predetermined time interval.[see at least (0007) record on the blockchain, by transmitting one or more electronic messages to the distributed blockchain computer system, ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset (0008) The server computer system may further be configured to perform actions that include: distributing at least one voting token (i.e., digital asset) to a digital wallet of each of the plurality of owners or their proxies. (0149) casting the vote may include generating a transaction including a voting token, a source blockchain address corresponding to the voter's digital wallet and a destination blockchain address corresponding to the blockchain address for a selected voting option]
Regarding Claim 18. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 16. Gordon further discloses:
wherein the digital asset comprises a cryptocurrency. [(14/15-17) The user device is then operable to purchase at least one securities token via the cryptocurrency account or digital wallet of the investor.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to include the additional features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon further teaches dynamically updating data and digital asset being cryptocurrencies. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 19. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 16. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a number of digital assets owned or controlled, a period of time for which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is owned or controlled, an entity from which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, a method by which at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets is acquired, or a price paid for at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets. [(0050) the software may be used to retrieve and output to the user, the current ownership information … Information such as the number of assets of a particular type that an owner of a digital wallet owns.]
Regarding Claim 20. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 16. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: an individual associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, a person associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, or a wallet address associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets. [see at least (0007) The server computer system is configured to: record on the blockchain … ownership information of respective groups of one or more units of an asset for each of a plurality of owners of the asset; and to configure, for each of one or more of the plurality of owners, a digital wallet corresponding to one of said groups of one or more units of the asset. (0061) at operation 302, the blockchain is configured with asset ownership information. This operation includes recording the ownership of one or more types of assets]
Regarding Claim 21. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 16. Hodgman further discloses:
wherein the measure of decentralization comprises one of more of: a Gini index, a N[a]kamoto index, a Shapley-Shubik power index, a Banzhaf power index, or combinations thereof. [see at least (0041) Applying this Gini coefficient calculation to the embodiments described herein, a high Gini coefficient indicates that most processes are heavily concentrated in particular paths. Deviations therefore suggest a binary is used for a malicious purpose. (0043) the Gini coefficient may suggest that a particular process is characterized by a degree of inequality. This degree of inequality can then be used to infer that the use of a non-malicious binary could be for malicious purposes.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to include the additional features of Hodgman. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of adjusting record associated with digital asset in Hodgman with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Hodgman further teaches adjusting records associated with digital asset. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 22. DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the claim limitations of claim 16. DeMarinis further discloses:
wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: a voting right, a monetary value, an ability to distribute the digital asset, whitelisting wallet addresses, blacklisting wallet addresses, staking, or combinations thereof. [see at least (0040) enable other participants in the system to send transactions to that user. (0093) each include a blockchain address to which corresponding voting rights transactions are addressed to, and the number of voting rights tokens]
Regarding Claim 23 DeMarinis, Hodgman, Gordon discloses the limitations of claim 16. Gordon further discloses:
wherein adjusting, based on the measure of decentralization not satisfying the threshold, the attribute associated with the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets comprises one or more of: adjusting the attribute within each digital asset; adjusting a record associated with each digital asset; adjusting a record associated with at least one wallet address of one or more wallet addresses; increasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset; decreasing a voting right associated with at least one digital asset; or increasing a voting right associated with a first subset of the plurality of digital assets and decreasing a voting right associated with a second subset of the plurality of digital assets. [(64/56-63) if a poll is open and a shareholder purchases additional shares while the poll is open, the platform is operable to dynamically adjust voting results in real time by altering the number of shares and/or the voting rights (i.e., increasing or decreasing voting rights) of the share class (e.g., preferred stock with a 2:1 voting right). These capabilities of the platform advantageously allow polling to be used for voting for board members, share classes approving board resolutions, and/or other governance questions that require feedback from the owners of the company.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to include the additional features of Gordon. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of dynamically updating data in Gordon with the digital assets of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon to make sure user has access to accurate information associated with the digital asset. DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon discloses digital asset associated with an owner. Gordon further teaches dynamically updating data and digital asset being cryptocurrencies. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Applicant submits: “Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement because the claims recite "causing, based on continuously monitoring one or more parameters" which is allegedly not adequately described in the specification, in the drawings, or in the original set of claims. See Office Action, (pp. 24-25).”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: “ Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. See Office Action, (pp. 26-27). The Office Action explains that the limitations "generating, by a computing device, based on a distribution ... causing, based on the generation of the one or more records ... causing, based on the continuous monitoring of the .. ." is unclear how "the device is 'generating' the records and it is unclear how the action is being performed for 'causing."' Id. Applicant submits that claims 1, 9, and 16, as presented are sufficient definite because it is not necessary to define every term in a limitation. The claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification. For instance, paragraphs 64-72 provide sufficient support for the generation of records stored in a blockchain. In addition, the claims have been amended accordingly to show that the records are modified instead of being caused to be adjusted. Therefore, Applicant submits claims 1, 9, and 16 Are not unclear and requests that the rejections be withdrawn.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “Claim 1 has been amended to recite: "generating, by a computing device, based on a distribution of a plurality of digital assets, one or more records stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system, wherein the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of the plurality of digital assets being associated with one or more identifiers and data indicative of an attribute of each digital asset of the plurality of digital assets [...]; continuously monitoring, based on verifying one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data according to one or more digital operations performed by at least one digital wallet of the one or more digital wallets, one or more parameters associated with at least one indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets; and modifying, based on amending the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to include the verified one or more updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data and based on the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to dynamically adjust the corresponding attribute of each digital asset according to the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset [...]." The present claims do not recite methods of organizing human activity or processes that may be performed by the human mind. For instance, the limitations described above involve the generation of cryptographically hashed transaction data records stored across multiple computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system, the verification of updates to cryptographically hashed transaction data according to digital operations performed by digital wallets, the continuous monitoring of ownership parameters derived from the verified cryptographic updates, and the dynamic modification of digital asset attributes by amending the distributed records in response to the verified cryptographic updates. These limitations define how a decentralized computing infrastructure enforces and propagates ownership-related state changes and addresses the technical mechanism by which a distributed ledger system securely records, verifies, and propagates those changes across computing nodes. Moreover, the human mind cannot perform cryptographic hash functions, which require computational processing to generate hash values from input data, and coordinate the modification of data across multiple computing nodes in a distributed system. To allege that such a claim is simply directed to method of organizing human behaviors or mental processes would require the claim to be construed at a "high level of abstraction [] untethered from the language of the claim[s][,]" which "all but ensures that the exceptions to 101 swallow the rule." See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Examiner response: : Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception, however, the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. The examiner would like emphasize the amended claims 1, 9 and 16 recites “cryptographically hashed transaction data” and this claim element is additional element, and the falls under environment of use of using blockchain. See the updated rejection. The rejection is proper, and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “The present claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A) … Thus, paragraph 34 of the present Specification as-published recites the implementation of a dynamically adjustable governance structure with applications to cryptographically secured instruments. For instance, paragraph 34 recites that an attribute, such as a voting right, of a digital asset, such as a cryptocurrency, may be adjusted based on one or more parameters associated with an indication of an ownership of at least one digital asset. As such, the number of votes held by a person holding at least one digital asset may change because of a transaction associated with the digital asset between other people even though the person is not a participant of that transaction. Accordingly, the pending claims provide improvements over prior systems, resulting in an improved system for dynamically adjusting an attribute, such as a voting right, of a digital asset … When viewed as a whole, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite a specific technological implementation that improves the operation of a distributed decentralized computing system and digital wallet infrastructure. The claims are directed to a concrete, computer-implemented technique for maintaining and dynamically updating cryptographically secured records across a distributed decentralized computing system in response to verified digital wallet operations. The claims recite a specific, technical implementation that improves the functioning of decentralized computing systems and digital wallets by securely generating, verifying, and dynamically updating cryptographically hashed records in response to ownership changes. As such, the claims impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea by requiring (1) the generation of records comprising cryptographically hashed transaction data on distributed computing nodes; (2) the verification of updates according to digital wallet operations; (3) the modification of records by amending them to include verified updates; and (4) the dynamic adjustment of attributes based on ownership parameters … “The pending claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception (Step 2B) … As discussed above, the claims introduce a solution to issues that occur with the distribution of cryptocurrencies where a small group of initial cryptocurrency miners may accumulate most of the wealth and power that comes with owning the cryptocurrency. For instance, the claimed functions implement a method of dynamically adjusting governance structures associated with cryptographically secured instructions. Specifically, the claims require: generating records stored across multiple computing nodes of a decentralized system; storing cryptographically hashed transaction data indicative of digital asset associations and attributes; verifying updates to the cryptographically hashed transaction data using digital operations performed by digital wallets; and amending distributed records to dynamically adjust asset attributes in response to verified ownership changes. The claims recite a non-conventional arrangement in which cryptographically hashed transaction data is used as a trigger for dynamic attribute adjustment, where ownership indications derived from verified updates directly drive amendments to distributed records.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the claim as whole recites adjusting parameter associated with asset, and the additional elements “by a computing device,” “digital,” “stored on one or more computing nodes of a distributed decentralized computing system,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes comprise cryptographically hashed transaction,” “stored on the one or more computing nodes,” and “cryptographically hashed transaction” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of adjusting/modifying data associated with assets. See the updated rejected. Thus the rejection has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “The cited references do not teach or suggest preventing "modifying [...] the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to dynamically adjust the corresponding attribute of each digital asset according to the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset" as claimed … votes that are provided by each share. Moreover, claim 1 specifically recites "wherein the attribute associated with a first identifier of the one or more identifiers is adjusted based on the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset changing from being associated with a second identifier of the one or more identifiers to being associated with a third identifier of the one or more identifiers." Gordon fails to teach that a person's voting rights are changed based on a transaction between other people in which the person is not a participant. In other words, Gordon fails to teach that a number of votes given to a person for each share that person holds are adjusted based on a transaction, such as an exchange of shares, between other people in which the person is not a participant. In Gordon, the voting rights of a shareholder are adjusted according to the shares purchased by that shareholder. Gordon fails to teach that the number of votes provided for each individual share are adjusted. DeMarinis and Gordon, alone or in combination, are devoid of any teachings or suggestion”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the combination of DeMarinis, in view of Gordon does disclose the limitation of claim 1. The combination of the references discloses digital assets and adjusting parameters associated with digital asset. Applicant further argues “Gordon fails to teach that a person's voting rights are changed based on a transaction between other people in which the person is not a participant.” However, the examiner would like to emphasize, that claim 1, 9 or 16 does not recite the limitation of a voting right’s related to people that are not the participants. Additionally, the rejection of claim 1, 9, 16 has been updated to reflect the current amended claim limitation. See the updated rejection. Thus, rejection has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “B. The motivation to combine DeMarinis with Gordon is not properly supported The Supreme Court of the United States noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In the present case, the Office Action correctly admits that DeMarinis does not disclose the claimed "causing, based on the continuous monitoring of the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, the one or more records stored on the one or more computing nodes to dynamically update to adjust the corresponding attribute of each digital asset according to the one or more parameters associated with the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset, wherein the attribute associated with a first identifier of the one or more identifiers is adjusted based on the at least one indication of the ownership of the at least one digital asset changing from being associated with a second identifier of the one or more identifiers to being associated with a third identifier of the one or more identifiers." Office Action, (p. 29). Instead, the Office Action relies on Gordon to teach the above cited limitation. Id. The Office Action's combination of Gordon with DeMarinis to reject these features of claims 1, 9, and 16 is demonstrative of improper piecemeal examination. The Office Action deconstructs the aforementioned features and uses the features as a roadmap to locate each component part in disparate teachings of DeMarinis and Gordon. In other words, the Office Action's combination Gordon with DeMarinis employs improper "hindsight reasoning" that "uses the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components[ See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co, 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the DeMarinis discloses parameters and identifiers associated with digital assets, however, it does not expressly disclose dynamically update. Thus, the Gordon reference discloses dynamically updating data. The combination of DeMarinis, in view of Gordon discloses the claim limitation of claim 1. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, the motivational statement has been updated to adequately identify what is taught by each reference. See the updated rejection.
Applicant submits: “C. The motivation to combine DeMarinis with Hodgman is not properly supported The Supreme Court of the United States noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In the present case, the Office Action correctly admits that DeMarinis does not disclose the claimed "a measure of decentralization [...] [and] sending a notification comprising an indication of the measure of decentralization satisfying the threshold." Office Action, (pp. 35- 36). Instead, the Office Action relies on Hodgman to teach the above cited limitations. Id. The Office Action's combination of Hodgman with DeMarinis to reject these features of claims 9 and 16 is demonstrative of improper piecemeal examination. The Office Action deconstructs the aforementioned features and uses the features as a roadmap to locate each component part in disparate teachings of DeMarinis and Hodgman. In other words, the Office Action's combination Hodgman with DeMarinis employs improper "hindsight reasoning" that "uses the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components[. See Ruiz V. A.B. Chance Co, 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits the Office Action's combination of Hodgman with DeMarinis indicates an impermissible use of hindsight reconstruction and ex post facto reasoning as well as piecemeal examination. Consequently, the rejection is not properly supported. Thus, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the DeMarinis discloses parameters and identifiers associated with digital assets, however, it does not expressly disclose dynamically update, or using measure of decentralization. The Hodgman reference teaches using Gini index, although the applicant argues the present invention may use the Gini Index to perform specific function, however, this fall under intended use of the Gini Index. And, the Gordon reference discloses dynamically updating data. The combination of DeMarinis, in view of Hodgman, in further view of Gordon discloses the claim limitation of claims 9 and 16. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, the motivational statement has been updated to adequately identify what is taught by each reference. See the updated rejection.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210256485 A1 FIDANZA; Paolo et al. TRANSACTION CARD SYSTEM HAVING OVERDRAFT CAPABILITY - A transaction card system pulls past transaction data from a financial institution. A user profile model is applied to the past transaction data and customer data features and transforms the data into a user feature profile that summarizes the identity data, financial health and payment capacity of the customer. An overdraft request has current declined transaction details relating to a customer transaction using the transaction card. The computing network pulls from cache the most recent customer transaction banking data and most recent user feature profile and applies a machine learning approval model to the current declined transaction details, the most recent customer transaction data, and the most recent user feature profile, and determines whether to approve or decline the overdraft amount.
US 20150363820 A1 LEITERSDORF; Jonathan et al. REAL-TIME DIGITAL ASSET SAMPLING APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS - The real-time digital asset sampling apparatuses, methods and systems (“RDA”) transform ad bidding requests via RDA components and/or the like into ad pricing indices, financial instruments and/or the like. In one implementation, the RDA may determine a digital asset market bid sampling distribution for a digital asset associated with a plurality of attribute parameters; submit a digital asset pricing bid to an exchange platform; determine a current digital asset price based on bidding result of the digital asset market bids sampling; and aggregate the determined current digital asset price to generate a digital asset price index for the digital asset associated with a plurality of attribute parameters.
US 20210350370 A1 ROHLFS; Michael B. REFERENTIAL DATA STRUCTURES FOR AUTOMATICALLY UPDATING ASSET ATTRIBUTES IN REAL TIME BASED ON STREAMING DATA - A server connected to a network generates a database including a first data structure configured to store attributes of fungible assets, where the attributes determine market values of the fungible assets, and a second data structure having fields referentially related to the attributes stored in the first data structure such that a change in any one of the fields induces a change in real time in a corresponding attribute in the first data structure. The server receives a stream of data regarding one or more of the attributes of the fungible assets from the network, which modifies one or more of the fields of the second data structure, and which allows at least one of cycling, liquidating, and replenishing of one or more of the fungible assets while maintaining a relative value equivalence of the fungible assets. The server securely validate, verify, record, trace, and track transactions for cryptocurrency specimens.
US 20230334494 A1 Yerli; Cevat CRYPTOGRAPHIC DIGITAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - In some embodiments, a method of managing value of assets is provided. A graphical representation of a digital asset associated with a non-fungible token stored in a distributed ledger is provided. User attention to the graphical representation of the digital asset is tracked, and a value of the digital asset is adjusted based on a level of attention of the tracked user attention and a number of users interacting with the graphical representation of the digital asset. A corresponding system and non-transitory computer-readable medium are also provided.
US 20220230195 A1 ROHLFS; Michael B. REFERENTIAL DATA STRUCTURES FOR AUTOMATICALLY UPDATING ASSET ATTRIBUTES IN REAL TIME BASED ON STREAMING DATA - A server connected to a network generates a database including a first data structure configured to store attributes of fungible assets, where the attributes determine market values of the fungible assets, and a second data structure having fields referentially related to the attributes stored in the first data structure such that a change in any field induces a change in real time in a corresponding attribute in the first data structure. The server receives a stream of data regarding the attributes of the fungible assets from the network, modifies the fields of the second data structure, and allows cycling, liquidating, and replenishing of one or more of the fungible assets while maintaining a relative value equivalence of the fungible assets. The server securely validated, verifies, records, traces, and tracks transactions for cryptocurrency specimens. The server generates tokens based on the fungible assets for trading over subnetworks and provides price discovery.
US 20200334668 A1 NICLI; Sauro et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DIGITAL ASSETS - Method and system of controlling by a control authority (2) emission or destruction of digital assets from a request received by an accredited ledger (8), so that the control authority can access to the ledger (8) for reading data stored therein. The request may relate to transfer registration of digital asset towards an account or between two accounts. Requests include stamp time and store and updated balance. In particular, the ledger (8) registers the transfer according to the received request by updating balances only in case the updated digital account balance of the account to be debited is positive.
US 11487850 B1 Nieto; Andrea et al. Activation architecture for processing digital assets and related physical products - Systems and method disclosed herein provide a digital asset system that interconnects the processing of digital assets and related physical products within an enterprise network. Digital assets may be generated and updated based on a number of factors including the interactions with the digital asset within the enterprise network and the physical and commercial attributes of the related physical products. Digital assets may be dynamically updated on real-world conditions and utilized to facilitate cross-system interaction between users, manufacturing, and user engagement systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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 at (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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights