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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated May 14, 2026 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated January 15, 2026. Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-22 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 11, 15-16, and 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites "the plurality of deposit states” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites "the first deposit state” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “a second state” (line 4). Claim 13, upon which claim 15 depends, recites “a second state” (line 34). The first instance of a claim element should generally subsequently be followed by referring to the element using “the” or “said”. Reciting “a second state” a second time makes it unclear whether the two instances of “a second state” refer to the same claim element or different claim elements. Dependent claim 16 inherits this discrepancy by nature of its dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites "the computing system” (line 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites "the processor” (line 3), “the memory” (line 4), “the reward” (line 13), “the detected game-state data” (lines 13-14), and “the generated cryptographic reward” (lines 16-17). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites "the cryptographic object” (line 1), “the exposure state” (line 2), “the mining state” (line 3), and “the staking state” (line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 13 and 15-19 are directed to a game providing device (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (i.e., a manufacture), and Claims 21-22 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 and recites the instructions for (the abstract idea is underlined) a method of depositing a cryptocurrency in a game by a computing system, the method comprising:
displaying a graphic user interface (GUI) for selecting at least one state of a cryptocurrency among a plurality of states;
receiving, by the computing system, an input from a first user to select a first state through the GUI, the first state in which a first reward is generated as an interest income as a principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user is deposited;
based on the input from the first user, generating, by the computing system, a deposit transaction for executing a first smart contract related to the first state, the first smart contract comprising a condition for generating the first reward as interest income as the principal cryptocurrency is deposited, and a withdrawal condition;
transmitting, by the computing system, the deposit transaction to a blockchain network for executing the first smart contract;
obtaining, by the computing system, a winning condition for providing a second user with the generated interest income through game content;
based on the obtained winning condition being satisfied by the second user under the first state:
generating, by the computing system, a first withdrawal transaction for executing the first smart contract based on satisfaction of the withdrawal condition set in the first smart contract, the first withdrawal transaction indicating that the first reward is provided to the second user and the principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user is maintained;
based on the obtained winning condition not being satisfied by the second user under the first state:
generating, by the computing system, a second withdrawal transaction for executing the first smart contract based on satisfaction of the withdrawal condition set in the first smart contract, the second withdrawal transaction indicating that the first reward is provided to the first user and the principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user is maintained; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the first withdrawal transaction or the second withdrawal transaction, to the blockchain network;
wherein the plurality of states comprises at least one of a second state or a tradable state:
the second state indicating a second reward is generated as an interest income as the principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user is deposited, and based on the winning condition being satisfied by the second user under the second state, the second reward and the principal cryptocurrency are provided to the second user by executing a second smart contract different from the first smart contract,
the tradable state indicating the principal cryptocurrency is not deposited and the interest income of the principal cryptocurrency is not generated, and the principal cryptocurrency is tradable among users.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the abstract idea describes the following scheme:
a first user selects deposit terms under which a principal earns interest income;
the parties enter a deposit agreement having an interest-generation condition and a withdrawal condition;
a winning condition is established under which a second user may win the interest income by playing a game;
the interest is padi out according to whether the second user satisfies the winning condition.
This falls into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic practices because principle is deposited to earn interest income, holding the principle subject to withdrawal conditions, and wagering the interest on the outcome of a game are fundamental economic practices. The “condition for generating the first reward as interest income as the principal cryptocurrency is deposited, and a withdrawal condition” and the terms for “the first reward is provided to the second user and the principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user is maintained” are contractual terms governing the distribution of funds between parties. “[O[]btaining … a winning condition for providing a second user with the generated interest income” and allocating funds based on whether “the obtained winning condition [is[] being satisfied by the second user” set out the rules of a wagering game between a first user and a second user.
Claim 21 recites the instructions for (the abstract idea is underlined) a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first user input via a graphical interface for selecting a cryptographic state of a principal cryptocurrency, wherein the processor modifies a data field in the memory to set the principal cryptocurrency to one of a mining state, an exposure state, or a staking state;
generating, by the computing device, a smart contract comprising a deposit transaction based on the selected state with a blockchain network by transmitting a deposit transaction that locks the principal cryptocurrency for the generation of a cryptographic object based at least in part on a winning condition;
detecting, by the computing device, the winning condition based on an outcome of an interaction between a first user and a second user; and
triggering, by the computing device, a withdrawal transaction to the blockchain network to programmatically distribute the reward and the principal cryptocurrency based on the detected game-state data and the cryptographic state, such that:
in the mining state, and based on the winning condition being satisfied by the second user, the computing device transmits a command to execute the smart contract to transfer only the generated cryptographic reward to the second user while maintaining the principal cryptocurrency for the first user;
in the exposure state, and based on the winning condition being satisfied by the second user, the computing device transmits a command to transfer both the generated cryptographic object and the principal cryptocurrency to the second user; and
in the staking state the computing device restricts the second user from accessing the principal cryptocurrency and provides the cryptographic reward only to the first user upon receipt of a provision request.
The abstract idea describes:
a user selects on of several payout arrangements;
the principal is held pending a winning condition;
the outcome of “an interaction between a first user and a second user” is determined;
the reward and principal are distributed according to the selected arrangement.
This is a fundamental economic practices (escrow and conditional settlement), a commercial or legal interaction (contractual terms of distribution), and the management of interactions between people (rules of a wagering game).
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The additional elements in the present claims are a computing system, a graphic user interface, smart contract, transmitting, by the computing system, the first withdrawal transaction or the second withdrawal transaction, to the blockchain network, a memory, at least one processor, a computer, a computing device, a graphical interface. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the present claims are
a computing system, a memory, at least one processor, a computer, a computing device (Vancura, US 2002/0043759 A1, the slot machine 10 is conventional and may comprise a number of different designs; the block diagram hardware components of such a slot machine 10 as shown in FIG. 1 are illustrative only and include a microprocessor or computer or controller 20 interconnected to a device 30 for receiving bets or wagers from players; the microprocessor 20 is also interconnected to memory [0065]);
a graphic user interface, a graphical interface (Walker et al., US 2008/0039190 A1, graphical user interfaces, including graphical buttons provided via touch screens, menus, etc., are well known in the art [0101]);
smart contract (Bayne, US 2021/0090166 A1, smart contracts are well known by those skilled in the art [0027]);
a blockchain network (Chhuor et al., US 2020/0057626 A1, the blockchain technology, or Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) itself, is well-known to people in the Internet industry for other uses [0050]);
transmitting the first withdrawal transaction or the second withdrawal transaction, to the blockchain network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, claims 1-11, 13, and 15-22 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant states “amended claim 1 does not merely claim the abstract game rule or economic practice of providing a reward for winning” (Response [p. 13]). Applicant goes on to state that the claim recites “a specific data processing and communication mechanism that links the game logic with the withdrawal condition of the blockchain smart contract” (Response [p. 13]). Applicant also argues that claim 1 does not describe a concept performed in the human mind (Response [p. 13]).
The examiner disagrees.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the claim limitations are found to fall into certain methods of organizing human activity, not mental processes.
The “link” between “the game logic” and the “withdrawal condition” is the abstract idea. Conditioning payout of funds on the outcome of a game is a wagering arrangement. Setting the terms under which escrowed funds are released is a contractual and economic practice.
The elements applicant relies on are additional elements. The presence of computer components does not mean the claim fails to recite an abstract idea. The degree of specificity of the claimed rules does not remove them from the abstract realm.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, applicant argues that the claim recites “a specific data processing system where the smart contract of the blockchain network is selectively executed based on the state selected in the game system.” (Response [p. 13]) Applicant further argues that the claim achieves “a clear technical improvement that secures the liquidity of blockchain assets within the game system” (Response [pp. 13-14]). Finally, applicant states that providing a plurality of states for users to choose from demonstrates a practical application (Response [p. 14]).
The examiner disagrees.
The selective execution of smart contracts is part of the abstract idea, not an additional element. The examiner does not agree that this is a technical improvement.
The claims do not recite any changes to how a smart contract is structure, compiled, or executed, or to how the blockchain network processes transactions. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The asserted problem that the liquidity of blockchain assets is secured within the game system is a financial problem, not a deficiency in computer or blockchain technology.
Finally, offering users a plurality of states to choose from is fundamental economic practice. A financial benefit to the user does not demonstrate a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, applicant argues claim 1 links “the game server (off-chain) and the smart contract (on-chain)” through a “technological structure that maps the logical win/loss outcome of the game system into a ‘transaction trigger’” (Response [p. 14]). Finally, applicant argues that “linking distinct smart contract structures for each state of the principal cryptocurrency” is “a specific and unconventional technical implementation” that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional (Response [p. 14]).
The examiner disagrees.
At step 2B, the rejection concludes that the computing system, the smart contract, and the blockchain network amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components, and that they generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
With respect to the argument regarding “the game server (off-chain) and the smart contract (on-chain)”, the claims do not recite a game server, an off-chain component, an on-chain component, any interface or oracle between them or any “technological structure that maps” a game outcome to a transaction. Features not recited in the claims cannot be relied upon to establish eligibility.
Finally, the “distinct smart contract structures for each state” are distinct sets of payout terms. The asserted unconventionality lies in the arrangement of abstract ideas, not in any additional elements. An inventive concept cannot be supplied by the abstract idea itself, however novel.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly ore than the abstract idea. The rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
