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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 5/29/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/18/2026 has been entered.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to determining and packaging a sample of physical diamonds, and facilitating bidding for the physical diamonds, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-9 and 17-20 each recite a method and at least one step. Claims 10-16 recite a system comprising a network interface, processor, and memory. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding representative independent claim 17, the claim sets forth a process in which a sample of physical diamonds is determined and physical diamonds are packaged, and bidding for physical diamonds is facilitated, in the following limitations:
submitting a plurality of bids associated with a first subset of a plurality of diamonds;
in response to a set of accepted bids, withdrawing a second subset of bids from the plurality of bids wherein the second subset of bids includes diamonds that have a threshold similarity of properties to those diamonds having accepted bids, thereby generating weighting data corresponding to the first subset of the plurality of diamonds;
receiving a set of data describing a plurality of diamonds each having a distinctive set of properties and a corresponding grade, the set of data including the weighting data corresponding to the first subset of the plurality of diamonds, the first subset prioritizes inclusion of diamonds that have varied combinations of properties;
fitting the plurality of diamonds to the multi-dimensional graph data structure by performing a chi-squared fit analysis for properties of the plurality of diamonds to validate the set of data describing the plurality of diamonds;
weighting, based on the weighting data, diamonds of the first subset within the multi-dimensional graph data structure, wherein diamonds closer to a given location corresponding to a diamond of the first subset fitted to the multi-dimensional graph data structure are weighted more heavily;
imputing, to the multi-dimensional graph data structure, additional weighting data corresponding to the plurality of diamonds that are outside of the first subset based on said weighting and the weighting data;
calling the weighting data and the additional weighting data from the multi-dimensional graph data structure to determine a plurality of subsets of diamonds from the plurality of diamonds that as a set collectively have a same combined value;
sealing the plurality of subsets of diamonds into tamper proof containers;
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction to submit bids for diamonds, determining a sampling of diamonds, and sealing diamonds in tamper proof containers for provision to customers. This arrangement amounts a sales activity or behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 17 does recite additional elements:
recording each tamper proof container to a blockchain data structure
This additional element merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“to a blockchain data structure”) and insignificant post solution activity (recording). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0112] - [0118] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Electronic recordkeeping has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Claims 1-3 are similar in scope to claim 17 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 sets forth a similar (though broader) abstract idea to claim 17, but does set forth further additional elements:
a network interface configured to
a processor
a memory including instructions that when executed cause the processor to
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0112] - [0118] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 10 sets forth:
a tamper proof container in which a given subset of the plurality of subsets is sealed therein; and
the instructions further comprising recording each tamper proof container to a blockchain data structure.
While the recitation of a tamper proof container is not part of the abstract idea, it represents an additional limitation to which the abstract idea of packaging a physical diamond for purchase, which is a commercial interaction. Given the high-level recitation of this additional limitation, it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 10.
The recitation of recording each tamper proof container to a blockchain data structure is parallel to the “recording” limitation in claims 2 and 17. Accordingly, it is merely insignificant post solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and does not provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claims 4-9, 12-16, 18-20
These dependent claims merely embellish the abstract idea of claims 1, 10, and 17, and do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101 rejections above, without broadening their scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because:
claim 1 recites an improvement to a technology or a technical field, thereby integrating the claim into a practical application. Bitcoin and stable coin technologies have a variety of issues (e.g., insufficient data structures to store object values) that limit their functional value. See Specification at paras. [0004]-[0005]. A crowdsourced, decentralized reserve comprised of a real asset-backed commodity can resolve many of these issues. See Specification at para. [0006]. Diamonds can be a real asset to back such a reserve. However, diamonds possess a high degree of variability across multiple measurable properties (e.g., ~16 million potential combinations of properties). See Specification at para. [0088]. This variability complicates the classification, grouping, and ultimately the standardization of diamond backed commodities using conventional data structures. See Specification at para. [0006]. Further, this variability, and the sheer number of property combinations available, make it impossible for a human to process this information to be able to assign a diamond a value based on that data, much less update the diamonds value as the data changes.
The multi-dimensional graph data structure of claim 1 resolves the complications that arise from the diamond variability described above. Specifically, the multi- dimensional graph data structure models diamonds according to their distinctive properties (as well as a purchase price) to weight and value the diamonds such that diamonds can be classified, grouped, and standardized. This technology thus improves the functional value of the present technology when compared to Bitcoin and stable coin technologies, and thereby integrates the claim into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A.
However, the purported problems (limit functional value of stable coin technologies) and solutions (backing a stable coin reserve with a diamonds) are both entirely commercial in nature. The purported technology that helps to provide the purported solution is a multi-dimensional graph data structure, which is a mathematical tool to gather a quality sample of diamonds to use for such a backing. Thus, the claims set forth using a mathematical tool to perform statistical analysis to implement a commercial scheme. The only integration of technology is the generic linkage of the determined sample of diamonds to blockchain technology (“recording each tamper proof container to a blockchain data structure”). The Examiner asserts that such a combination does not amount to an improvement to a technology or technical field, but to the commercialization of a technology. There is no precedent for an improvement to commercialization of a technology rendering an otherwise ineligible claim eligible.
Applicant further asserts:
Further, the amended claims also integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A by clarifying aspects of the functionality of the multi-dimensional graph data structure. For example, amended independent claim 1 clarifies (1) the fitting process - "fitting the plurality of diamonds to the ... data structure-... to validate the set of data describing the plurality of diamonds," (2) the weighing function - "weighting, based on the weighting data, diamonds ... within the multi- dimensional graph data structure, wherein diamonds closer to a given location corresponding to a diamond of the first subset ... are weighted more heavily," (3) the data structure imputation - "imputing, to the multi-dimensional graph data structure, additional weighting data corresponding to the plurality of diamonds that are outside of the first subset," and (4) the subset determination process - "calling ... data from the multi- dimensional graph data structure to determine a plurality of subsets of diamonds ... that as a set collectively have a same combined value." These amendments clarify the technical elements of the recited computer-based technology and the ways in which these technical elements interact to improve the functional value of the present technology when compared to Bitcoin and stable coin technologies. Thus, the Applicant asserts that the amendments to the independent claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present amendments further specify a fitting and weighting process used to determine a sample of diamonds to package and store on the blockchain. None of the newly amended language adds technological specificity or additional technological operations. As noted above, he only integration of technology remains the generic linkage of the determined sample of diamonds to blockchain technology (“recording each tamper proof container to a blockchain data structure”). Accordingly, the amended claims still represent the mere application of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment (i.e., “apply it”). That the commercial value of blockchain may be improved by the claimed commercial scheme is not determinative of claim eligibility.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are held to be ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights