DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment received on 03/16/2026.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to applicant’s amendment for US patent application 18/346,081 filed on 03/16/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 12-15 and 19 are amended.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 16 and 20 are cancelled.
Overall, claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Claims 10, 12-15 and 17-18 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 19 is directed to a computer readable medium (CRM). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
aggregating tokens from a plurality of wallets into a global pool of tokens, wherein the global pool of tokens comprises a first type of token and a second type of token; and wherein the first type of token comprises tokens encapsulating a base token and in a recoverable state and the second type of token comprises tokens encapsulating the base token and in a non-recoverable state;
receiving a request to exchange a first quantity of the first type of token stored in a wallet to a second type of token;
calculating a second quantity of the second type of token to transfer to the wallet based, at least in part, on a ratio of the first quantity of the first type of token to the second quantity of the second type of token in the global pool of tokens and on a delta between the first quantity and the second quantity, wherein the delta is based on a likelihood that the first type of token will not successfully convert to the second type of token;
transferring the first quantity of the first type of token to the global pool of tokens; and
transferring the second quantity of the second type of token to the wallet.
Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for converting and transferring a first type of token to a second type of token from a pool of tokens based on a calculated ratio and a delta. The claim achieves this by aggregating different type of tokens in a pool of token, receiving a request to exchange one type of token for a second type of token, calculating the amount of the second type of token, transferring the first quantity of the first type of token to the pool of tokens and transferring the second type of token to a wallet. Claim 10 and 19 are significantly similar to claim 1. As such claim 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (i.e., fundamental economic practices).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a plurality of wallets merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-15 and 17-18 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-15 and 17-18 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 3 and 12 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
unwrapping the second quantity of the second type of token to the second quantity of the base token; and
transferring the second quantity of the base token to the wallet.
The claim further recites the abstract idea a method for converting and transferring a first type of token to a second type of token from a pool of tokens based on a calculated ratio. In other words, it recites limitations 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)). Further, the additional element is recited at a high level generally amounting to no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea also failing to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving an indication that a third quantity of the first type of token is frozen; and
removing the third quantity of the first type of token from the global pool of tokens.
The claim further recites the abstract idea a method for converting and transferring a first type of token to a second type of token from a pool of tokens based on a calculated ratio. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element reciting the claim 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)). Further, the additional element is recited at a high level generally amounting to no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea also failing to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the second type of token comprises a fungible token issued by any of a plurality of issuers.
The claim further recites the abstract idea a method for converting and transferring a first type of token to a second type of token from a pool of tokens based on a calculated ratio. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element reciting the claim 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)). Further, the additional element is recited at a high level generally amounting to no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea also failing to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
segregating the first type of token in the global pool based on issuers of the first type of token.
The claim further recites the abstract idea a method for converting and transferring a first type of token to a second type of token from a pool of tokens based on a calculated ratio. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element reciting the claim 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)). Further, the additional element is recited at a high level generally amounting to no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea also failing to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the delta between the first quantity and the second quantity increases as a proportion of the first type of token to the second type of token increases in the global pool.
The claim further recites the abstract idea a method for converting and transferring a first type of token to a second type of token from a pool of tokens based on a calculated ratio. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element reciting the claim 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)). Further, the additional element is recited at a high level generally amounting to no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea also failing to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
distributing tokens to the plurality of wallets from which the global pool of tokens is drawn.
The claim further recites the abstract idea a method for converting and transferring a first type of token to a second type of token from a pool of tokens based on a calculated ratio. In other words, it recites limitations 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)). Further, the additional element is recited at a high level generally amounting to no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea also failing to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirico (US 2024/0086912 A1) in view of Pontem Network ( “Liquidity Pool Mechanics”, 2023) in further view of Zettler et al. (US 2024/0330877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 10 and 19, Sirico discloses:
aggregating tokens from a plurality of wallets into a global pool of tokens, wherein (Sirico ¶0032, a digital token pool is a mechanism by which users can contribute their digital tokens to a pool managed by a DEX functionality (smart contracts) implemented by a blockchain, that allows other clients to swap or exchange those digital tokens. Digital token pools include, but are not limited to, a particular type of pools referred to as liquidity pools.)
the global pool of tokens comprises a first type of token and a second type of token, and wherein (Sirico ¶0059, For example, we consider a digital token pool comprising Ethereum tokens and USD digital tokens. The digital token pool is created with 100 Ethereum tokens and 200 000 USD digital tokens.)
receiving a request to exchange a first quantity of the first type of token stored in a wallet to a second type of token; (Sirico ¶0076, For example, in the case of a swap transaction involving a client and a digital token pool, the client is the previous owner, and the digital token pool is the new owner for digital tokens of the first type ( e.g. Ethereum coins) involved in the transaction. The client is the new owner, and the digital token pool is the previous owner for digital tokens of the second type ( e.g. CAD stable coins) involved in the transaction.)
transferring the first quantity of the first type of token to the global pool of tokens; and (Sirico ¶0076, The swap transaction involves the client transferring a number of digital tokens N of the first type ( e.g. Ethereum coins) from a digital wallet to the digital token pool)
transferring the second quantity of the second type of token to the wallet. (Sirico ¶0076, … the digital token pool transferring a corresponding number of digital tokens M of the second type (e.g. CAD stable coins) to the digital wallet of the client.)
Sirico further discloses:
A system, comprising: a memory having executable instructions stored thereon; and a processor configured to execute the executable instructions… (Sirico ¶0006, According to a first aspect, the present disclosure relates to a platform comprising a communication interface, memory and a processing unit ( comprising one or more processors).)
A computer-readable medium having instructions stored… (Sirico ¶0008, According to a third aspect, the present disclosure relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processing unit of a platform.)
Sirico does not disclose, however Pontem Network teaches:
calculating a second quantity of the second type of token to transfer to the wallet based, at least in part, on a ratio of the first quantity of the first type of token to the second quantity of the second type of token in the global pool of tokens and on a delta between the first quantity and the second quantity, wherein the delta is based on a likelihood that the first type of token will not successfully convert to the second type of token; (Pontem Network P.5, Typically, a liquidity pool is made up of two different digital assets that are part of a specific trading pair. Some examples of this are APT/WETH, ETH/USDT, and APT/USDT. Built into the smart contract algorithm of the pool is a mathematical formula to carefully regulate the assets’ relative prices. The most commonly used formula is: X*Y=k Where X is the amount of one asset in the trading pair, Y is the amount of the other asset in the trading pair, and k is a constant. This ensures that the total liquidity in the pool remains constant over the course of each swap, while allowing the price ratio to fluctuate depending on the ratio of the assets in the pool. Pontem Network P.6, This formula is responsible for calculating the actual price of a swap. Every swap increases the reserve of one token, and decreases the reserve of the other, but the value of k remains constant over the course of the swap… The user who makes the swap adds some amount of token X to the pool (we’ll call this amount ΔX) and receives some Y tokens in return. We’ll call the amount that leaves the pool ΔY. (X+ΔX)*(Y-ΔY)=k X*Y=(X+ΔX)*(Y-ΔY) And if we rearrange the formula, we can solve for ΔY and get the change in price using the formula: ΔY=(Y*ΔX)/(X+ΔX)))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Sirico with Pontem Network. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enable the system to dynamically determine exchange rates while simultaneously accounting for token availability, thereby ensuring accurate pricing and preventing failed transactions.
The combination of Sirico and Pontem Network do not disclose, however Zettler teaches:
the first type of token comprises tokens encapsulating a base token (¶0013, The wrapped staked crypto token may represent the underlying staked crypto token, as well as rewards earned for staking the crypto token. The wrapped staked crypto token may be fully transferrable via the blockchain network. Additionally, the wrapped staked token may be unwrapped to access the underlying staked crypto token. The technique of wrapping the staked crypto token may result in increased liquidity for the staked crypto tokens, as well as provide an incentive to continue staking crypto tokens to earn rewards while increasing network security. ¶0039, Thus, after deploying the liquidity contract 250, the custodial token platform 210 may premint a pool of wrapped tokens and store the wrapped tokens to the token pool 245. In some examples, a corresponding amount of locked, staked crypto tokens (e.g., staked ETH) may also be set aside and associated with any amount of pre-minted wrapped tokens. The token pool 245 may include a collection of crypto tokens (e.g., wrapped tokens and/or staked tokens in respective pools or combined pools). In some examples, the token pool 245 may provide crypto tokens, including wrapped crypto tokens, to the user 205 via the user devices 280 after a request for the wrapped crypto token, avoiding delay otherwise associated with the process of wrapping the user's staked crypto token and then sending the wrapped crypto token to the user 205. ¶0057, For example, the request for wrapped crypto tokens may be immediately fulfilled by retrieving the wrapped crypto tokens from the pool of wrapped crypto tokens, which are available based on minting or preminting.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Sirico and Pontem Network with Zettler’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve flexibility, efficiency and interoperability of the system.
Further, the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler do not teach “…in a recoverable state… and in a non-recoverable state ". However, the claimed limitation only describes characteristics of the state of the first and second type of tokens which is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the delta is based on a likelihood that the first type of token will not successfully convert to the second type of token” do not move to distinguish over prior art. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler further discloses:
transferring the second quantity of the second type of token to the wallet comprises: unwrapping the second quantity of the second type of token to the second quantity of the base token; and (Zettler abstract, second request to unwrap the second crypto token, which is based on a second value of the current conversion ratio between the first crypto token and the second crypto token. Zettler ¶0014, The user or a second user may request to unwrap the wrapped crypto token to the staked crypto token. The custodial token platform may associate the unwrapped token to the requesting user address or user account. The value of the unwrapped staked token is based on a second value of a current conversion ratio between the staked crypto token and the wrapped crypto token.)
transferring the second quantity of the base token to the wallet. (Zettler ¶0037, Additionally, techniques described herein allow for the user 205 that has received the wrapped token to "unwrap" the token and be rewarded with the underlying staked asset (which may be locked). When a user unwraps, the user ( e.g., the user profile 230) may be given an amount of the staked asset that is based on the amount of rewards corresponding to the staked asset.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler’s by incorporating Zettler’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to allow for more liquidity on decentralized exchanges and interoperability between cryptocurrencies.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler further teaches:
the second type of token comprises a fungible token issued by any of a plurality of issuers (Sirico ¶0044, In another example, a client selling a number B of digital tokens via the centralized exchange server 200 receives an amount in fiat currency ( e.g. a number of CAD) corresponding to the number B of digital tokens from the owner of the centralized exchange server 200. For example, 6000 CAD are received for 3 Ethereum tokens if the value of the Ethereum token when the transaction is performed is 2000 CAD. A transaction fee is also paid to the owner of the centralized exchange server 200. Sirico ¶0076, For example, in the case of a swap transaction involving a client and a digital token pool, the client is the previous owner, and the digital token pool is the new owner for digital tokens of the first type ( e.g. Ethereum coins) involved in the transaction. The client is the new owner, and the digital token pool is the previous owner for digital tokens of the second type ( e.g. CAD stable coins) involved in the transaction.)
Further, the limitation “…comprises a fungible token issued by any of a plurality of issuers” do not move to distinguish over prior art. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler further discloses:
the delta between the first quantity and the second quantity increases as a proportion of the first type of token to the second type of token increases in the global pool (Pontem Network P.5-6, Where X is the amount of one asset in the trading pair, Y is the amount of the other asset in the trading pair, and k is a constant. This ensures that the total liquidity in the pool remains constant over the course of each swap, while allowing the price ratio to fluctuate depending on the ratio of the assets in the pool… This formula is responsible for calculating the actual price of a swap. Every swap increases the reserve of one token, and decreases the reserve of the other, but the value of k remains constant over the course of the swap. With that in mind, we can write a formula to show how the reserves would change. The user who makes the swap adds some amount of token X to the pool (we’ll call this amount ΔX) and receives some Y tokens in return.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler’s invention by incorporating Pontem Network’s additional teaching because this is a well understood property of ratio-based liquidity pricing models and is an expected design choice in any system that uses pool ratios to determine exchange amounts.
Further, the limitation “the delta between the first quantity and the second quantity increases as a proportion of the first type of token to the second type of token increases in the global pool” do not move to distinguish over prior art. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, in further view of Roche (US 20220188818 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler do not disclose, however Roche teaches:
receiving an indication that a third quantity of the first type of token is frozen; (¶0009, The ILO token contract can outline a variety of terms, such as terms for (1) communicating to all token holders the outcome of the litigation… ¶0077, Before the tokens are paid out, token holders can be notified that there is a settlement event and that is why the tokens are frozen. ¶0129, In other implementations, investor A can receive a notification in their wallet that a settlement event has occurred and that all associated tokens are frozen. ¶0146, The creation/settlement system 104 can verify that all associated tokens are frozen in 620. An amount of time can pass between execution of the freeze event in 618 and verifying frozen status of the tokens in 620. For example, the creation/settlement system 104 may not verify that all tokens are frozen until the nodes 108A-N send a notification to the system 104 that execution of the freeze event is complete.)
removing the third quantity of the first type of token from the global pool of tokens. (¶0009, The ILO token contract can outline a variety of terms, such as terms for (1) communicating to all token holders the outcome of the litigation, (2) distributing funds to token holders through a U.S. dollar backed stablecoin, and (3) removing the associated ILO tokens from circulation. ¶0013, The initial litigation product offering computer system can also pay out each of the instances of the litigation product token in a stable currency. The initial litigation product offering computer system can also dissolve the litigation product token after paying out each of the instances of the litigation product token. Dissolving the litigation product token can include removing the litigation product token from circulation in the digital exchange and removing a value assigned to the litigation product token. ¶0019, One or more of the following features can also be included. For example, the method can also include verifying that all the instances of the litigation product token are frozen in the litigation funding platform and exchange, retrieving, from the token ledger, addresses for entities that are assigned the addresses for all the instances of the litigation product token, determining, based on the received addresses for the entities, last prior addresses for the entities that were assigned to the addresses for all the instances of the litigation product token before adding the freeze event to the token ledger, and paying out each of the instances of the litigation product token to the last prior addresses for the entities. The method can also include dissolving the litigation product token. Dissolving the litigation product token can include removing the litigation product token from circulation in the litigation funding platform and exchange, and removing a value assigned to the litigation product token. ¶0111, Any remaining litigation product tokens can be dissolved in 446. For example, if any tokens are in circulation in the marketplace but have not been assigned to any investors or entities by a time of executing a freeze event, then such tokens can be removed from circulation. The litigation product token itself can be dissolved since the litigation has ended and litigation funding is no longer required. Thus, the token would no longer have value. No investors or other entities can purchase or sell the token in any marketplace on the blockchain. ¶0077, Once the creation/settlement system 104 verifies that all associated tokens are frozen, the tokens can be paid out to each token holder that was assigned tokens prior to the freeze event. The tokens can be paid out in a stable coin or currency, such as the U.S. dollar. ¶0163, The payout engine 732 can be configured to pay out token returns in a stable currency. Once the settlement event occurs and all associated tokens are frozen, the payout engine 732 can verify that all the associated tokens are in fact frozen. The payout engine 732 can then receive investor addresses (e.g., from the ledger 701) for token holders immediately prior to execution of the freeze event. The payout engine 732 can pay the token returns to these received investor addresses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler’s by incorporating Roche’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to provide ability to the system locks down the pool of token owners so that recoveries can be distributed (Roche ¶0025).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, in further view of Hamera (US 11,954,672 B1).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler do not disclose, however Hamera teaches:
segregating the first type of token in the global pool based on issuers of the first type of token. (Hamera Col 5 lines 12-16, The pools can be segregated by: entity, geography (e.g., of the keys' beneficial owners), blockchain, blockchain network, cryptocurrency, client, access, control, physical location, and/or otherwise segregated. Hamera Col 5 lines 19-21, Additionally or alternatively, a pool can logically segregate other resources, such as secrets, logins, entity data, and/or other data, in lieu of keys. Hamera Col 5 lines 30-35, Each pool is preferably accessible by a single requesting system, but can alternatively be accessed by multiple requesting systems. In a first variant, an entity can access keys within a limited set of one or more pools (e.g., pools registered to the entity), either directly or through a client.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler by incorporating Hamera’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to mitigate risk and fraud as well as to provide customization for the users.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in further view of Yeung (US 2023/0274305 A1).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, the combination of Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler do not disclose, however Yeung teaches:
distributing tokens to the plurality of wallets from which the global pool of tokens is drawn (Yeung abstract, distributing the fungible tokens into wallets of users who purchase one of the products of the company from a platform; issuing drawing tickets to the wallets of the users who redeem the fungible tokens, where the drawing tickets are automatically entered into a rewards pool for drawing; drawing rewards in the rewards pool to determine winners from the users who have the drawing tickets, according to reward rules; and issuing the rewards using smart contracts and depositing the rewards into wallets of the winners. Yeung ¶0051, he drawing tickets are automatically entered into a rewards pool for drawing; drawing rewards in the rewards pool to determine winners from the users who have the drawing tickets, according to reward rules; and issuing the rewards using smart contracts and depositing the rewards into wallets of the winners, wherein the winners redeem the rewards by claiming the drawing tickets in their wallets. Yeung ¶0231, And once one or more winners are decided and rewards are distributed, the platform may execute a transaction on the blockchain platform providing a user-specific reward to a corresponding user wallet for each of the users who have winning drawing tickets, wherein at least one of the rewards has the benefits of stock shares corresponding to the ownership of the Production Entity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination Sirico, Pontem Network and Zettler’s invention by incorporating Yeung’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enhance security and mitigate risks associated with wallets being compromised.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks/arguments in regards to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding, the applicant presents several assertions, i.e., “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea”, “the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application” and “the claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea”. The basis of these assertions are based on the applicant’s argument on pages 6-18.
The applicant’s asserts that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea” under step 2A prong 1. First, the applicant contends that “the examiner has not established that the features recited in the claims fall within any of the grouping identified in MPEP”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to this assertion, the examiner has clearly established that a method for aggregating different type of tokens in a pool of token, receiving a request to exchange one type of token for a second type of token, calculating the amount of the second type of token, transferring the first quantity of the first type of token to the pool of tokens and transferring the second type of token to a wallet falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (i.e., fundamental economic practices). Second, the applicant asserts that “the claimed features are an improvement to computer functionality (e.g., by allowing for the exchange of different types of tokens in a pool), and not merely fundamental economic practices, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion” which is also not persuasive. The claims do not recite any enhancement to the performance or architecture of the computer, blockchain or any other technology. Instead, the claim focuses on using the current computer technology and functionality (i.e. blockchain, wallet) to perform the token exchange (abstract idea). Third, the applicant assets that the “claims clearly recite terms of art in software engineering and computer science sufficient to show that the basic focus of the claims is the use of software technology, not to certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, Applicant’s claims recite computer-specific software constructs such as “blockchain,” “wallet,” and “token”.” The examiner also disagrees with this assertion. The recitation of “blockchain,” “wallet,” and “token” ,as stated by the applicant, does not change the underlining abstract idea and does not transform the claim into a technological improvement. These additional elements are merely use as tools to perform the abstract idea. Further, the applicant assertion that “the present claims recite specific steps by which tokens may be exchanged using a pool in order to accelerate the execution of transactions on the blockchain and reduce the computational expense that would have incurred with additional transactions” is also not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees. This assertion do not elevate the claims beyond and abstract idea. There is no specific technical algorithm that achieves these alleged improvement/benefits. In summary, as per MPEP 2106.04(a), in step 2A prong one to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the specific limitations in the claim under examination must be identified and analyzed to determine whether they fall within at least one of the recognize groupings of abstract ideas. If one of the limitations in the examined claim falls within one of the groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea and the examination continues to step 2A prong two.
The applicant assets that “the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application”. First, the applicant contends that “the claims reflect a technical improvement in the field of blockchain efficiency and security” by including “techniques for exchanging different types of tokens in a pool such that transactions are executed expeditiously without requiring as much computational resources associated with additional transactions”. The examiner find this assertion not persuasive. The claims as recited do no recite any specific technological improvement that changes or enhances how the blockchain operates. The claims merely recite using a pool to exchange different types of tokens. This is simply an automation of a token exchange workflow not a modification or enhancement to the blockchain technology. Further, applicant recitations of “executing transactions expeditiously” and “reducing the use of computation resources” are merely expected results as the claims do not recite any specific algorithm or technique that causes the alleged efficiency or security improvement. Second, the applicant asserts that the “claims are analogous to those held patentable in Ex parte Israel” and also compares them with the claims in Ex parte Das. The examiner also disagrees to such assertions. In both cases, the claims recite specific and concrete solutions to specific technological problems. In contrast, the present claims do not include any comparable technical improvement to the operation of a computer, network or blockchain system. Third, the applicant states that “the Examiner is improperly "evaluating the claims at a high level of generality" without considering whether the technical features confer a technological improvement to a technical problem” and “that the examiner is oversimplifying the claims by asserting that the "claims merely recite using a pool to exchange different types of tokens"” to which the examiner also disagrees. The examiner is not improperly evaluating the claims at a high level or oversimplifying them. As amended, the claim recites aggregating different type of tokens to a pool, receiving a request to exchange a quantity of X token to Y token stored in a wallet, calculating the quantity of Y token based on a ratio of the quantity of X token to the quantity of Y token available in the pool and a delta between a first quantity to the second quantity, transferring the first quantity of X token to the pool, transferring the second quantity of Y token to the wallet. Therefore the claims simply recite a process to exchange one type of token for a second type of token using a pool. The recitation of “wherein the first type of token comprises tokens encapsulating a base token and in a recoverable state and the second type of token comprises tokens encapsulating the base token and in a non-recoverable state” is only describing characteristics of the first and second type of tokens which is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. This recitation does not impact how the claimed steps above are performed, then it has no patentable weight. Further, the presence of a ratio or a delta does not provide a technical improvement or transform the claim. Finally, the applicant states that “by reciting specific techniques for exchanging recoverable and non-recoverable tokens, the claimed solution improves blockchain security without wholly erasing blockchain's unique properties (e.g., immutability).” However the examiner also disagrees. The amended claims do not recite any specific techniques for exchanging different type of tokens nor does improve upon the blockchain security. Therefore, the applicant assertions that the claim provide a technological improvement to blockchain efficiency and security is unsupported as the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond applying these tools to an abstract concept and thus fail to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
The claim describes nothing more than calculating an amount of tokes based on a ratio and a probability which falls under fundamental economic principles as previously stated and can be further classified as a mathematical concept. Nothing in the claim changes how the tokens are stored or how transactions are executed or verified. Accordingly, the presence of a ratio or a delta does not provide a technical improvement or transform the claim. Therefore, the applicant assertions that the claim provide a technological improvement to blockchain efficiency and security is unsupported as the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond applying these tools to an abstract concept and thus fail to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
The applicant assets that “the claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea” under Step 2B. The applicant also contends that “the present claims recite non-conventional and non-generic methods and systems, in this case for executing blockchain transactions via token pools with convertible tokens, which improve the performance of blockchains and the technical field of blockchain security.” The examiner respectfully disagrees to these assertions. The present claims do not recite any comparable nonconventional arrangement or blockchain architecture or computing components. In the instant claim, all additional elements (i.e. blockchain, wallet) are merely additional elements representing conventional computer technologies employed to apply the underlying abstract idea. To meet the requirements for patent eligibility, the claim must do more than simply apply this abstract idea using generic technological tools. Therefore, the recited claim, does not include any additional features that rise to the level of an inventive concept under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see page 19-20, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1,3-6,8-10,12-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the recited limitation being nonfunctional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
US 20240212042 A1 to ElMessiry discloses: A method of calculating and charging swapping fees in a DEX token exchange, wherein a trader is provided with fee and outcome valuations in advance and the swapping fee is charged prior to or concurrently with the token exchange.
WO 2024118972 A1 to Moss et al. discloses: In systems and methods for efficient remittance, a server computer receives, from a first issuer computer via an application programming interface (API), a request to transfer an amount of first currency to a receiving party. The server computer obtains an amount of digital currency corresponding to the amount of first currency and records a record of the transfer to a ledger of interactions. The server computer causes the record to be recorded to a blockchain. The server computer transmits, to a second issuer computer, a notification of the transfer and receives, from the second issuer computer via the API, a request for an amount of second currency corresponding to the amount of digital currency. The server computer transmits the amount of the second currency to the second issuer computer, causing the second issuer computer to provide the amount of second currency to the receiving party.
US 119,611,42 B2 to Leshner discloses: The disclosed computer-implemented method for pooling and transferring digital assets may include detecting a transaction event for a blockchain ledger. The blockchain ledger may include transaction records for a pool of digital assets and accounts collectively owning the digital assets. Each account may own a proportional portion of the digital assets corresponding to an account asset balance. The method may also include calculating an exchange rate based on a cash balance of the pool, a liabilities balance of the pool, and an ownership distribution value. The ownership distribution value may be based on a distribution of the account asset balances. The method may also include updating the cash balance based on the exchange rate and the transaction event, and adding a transaction record for the transaction event to the plurality of transaction records. Various other methods, systems, and computer-readable media are also disclosed.
US 118,808,36 B1 to Nemethi discloses: The method involves causing a gated autonomous program protocol to be stored on a blockchain, where the gated autonomous program protocol is configured to exchange a blockchain unit with a gated wrapped blockchain unit that is exchangeable among blockchain addresses that satisfy one or more gating requirements, the gating requirements including an access control requirement for use of the gated wrapped blockchain unit. The verification is made that an account associated with a particular blockchain address of the blockchain satisfies the gating requirements that include the access control requirement for use of the gated wrapped blockchain unit. The issuance of an on-chain verification proof that proves that the particular blockchain address satisfies the gating requirements is caused.
US 20230267456 A1 to Garner et al discloses: A blockchain system and method is provided that enables perpetual financial products to be provided in an efficient manner. The system includes: an oracle feed, defined on a blockchain, the oracle feed representing an off-chain data feed; first and second token pools defined on the blockchain, each token pool including at least one pool token; a smart contract defined by code on the blockchain, the smart contract configured to autonomously transfer pool tokens between the first and second pools according to data of the oracle feed; and first and second contract tokens defined on the blockchain, each contract token associated with the smart contract and the first and second token pools.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 on (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698