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 October 15, 2025 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated July 15, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-20 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 1-12 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 13-19 are directed to a game providing device (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. 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 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:
receiving, by the computing system, an input from a first user indicating a state change of a cryptocurrency;
changing, by the computing system, a state of a principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user to a first deposit state in which a first reward is generated as an interest income as the principal cryptocurrency is deposited;
obtaining, by the computing system, a winning condition for providing a second user with the generated interest income; and
based on the obtained winning condition being satisfied by the second user under the first deposit state:
transmitting, to a blockchain network, by the computing system, data indicating that the second user is provided with the generated first reward, and keeping the principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user.
The present claims are directed to a method of providing a user with a reward as an interest income as a principal cryptocurrency is deposited (Specification [0078]). These steps fall under the category of fundamental economic practice because they relate to transactions involving cryptocurrency and providing a reward. The claims also recite the deposit in a game, therefore the claims also fall into the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because they describe a set of rules for a wagering game. These steps fall under the category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they relate to the rules of a game where users may be rewarded for satisfying winning conditions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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 blockchain network, a memory, at least one processor, and a computer. 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. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does 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 are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
a computing system, a memory, at least one processor, and a computer (Vagner, US 2015/0302482 A1, a general computer can include a memory, a processor, input/out components, and other components that are common for general computers, all of which are well known in the art [0099]);
a blockchain network (McCullough et al., US 2023/0245137 A1, a larger-scale blockchain network or a third party blockchain network, such as, for example, the well-known Ethereum blockchain network [0106]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, claims 1-20 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
The closest prior art of record includes: Park, US 2003/0104863 A1 (hereinafter Park).
Park discloses a savings system using an online game and a storage medium therefor, wherein a member plays the game for money on the Internet; if the member wins the game, he obtains a profit whereas if the member loses the game, he is compelled to deposit a lost amount of money in a bank; and as a consequence, the member is guaranteed the principal at least (Park [Abstract]).
The prior art does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding prong 2 of step 2A, applicant states the method of claim 1 improves the current systems, integrating immutable security and greatly reducing the ability to create false electronic records of asset staking (Response [p. 9]).
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.
Merely reciting an improvement is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. One way to demonstrate an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The present claims do not change, let alone improve, the functioning of the computer. Furthermore, the examiner does not agree that the limitations of claim 1 are directed to an improvement of a technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is analogous to claim 1 of Example 42 (Response [p. 9]). The examiner is unable to find any similarity between “converting … the non-standardized updated information into the standardized format” of claim 1 of Example 42 with any limitation in the present claims. This involves a conversion, or translation, from one format to another.
Although claim 1 recites changing a “state” of a cryptocurrency. A principal amount earns an interest that is awarded to a winning condition. The examiner does not agree that the “cryptocurrency” changes state because of a change of its description (e.g., principal, interest, reward). A cryptocurrency transaction recorded in a blockchain stays cryptocurrency. The only difference is the details of the transaction, not a conversion of the cryptocurrency. The same thing happens with fiat currency. Transactions involving cryptocurrency are not similar to the change of state in claim 1 of Example 42. The examiner maintains that the additional elements of claim 1 (or the other independent claims and the dependent claims) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under prong 2 of step 2A.
Regarding step 2B, applicant states that the blockchain technology, as recited in claim 1, recites a specific, unconventional method of using a blockchain network to execute and finalize the outcome of a game where interest generated from a first user's deposited asset is awarded to a second user (Response [p. 10]). Applicant further states “[t]he combination of depositing cryptocurrency to generate interest, linking the award of that interest to a game's winning condition, and using a blockchain network to securely execute the transfer to the winner is not a routine or conventional activity” (Response [p. 10]).
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.
Per MPEP 2106.05(II):
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).
This evaluation is made with respect to the considerations that the Supreme Court has identified as relevant to the eligibility analysis, which are introduced generally in Part I.A of this section, and discussed in detail in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (h). Many of these considerations overlap, and often more than one consideration is relevant to analysis of an additional element. Not all considerations will be relevant to every element, or every claim. Because the evaluation in Step 2B is not a weighing test, it is not important how the elements are characterized or how many considerations apply from this list. It is important to evaluate the significance of the additional elements relative to the invention, and to keep in mind the ultimate question of whether the additional elements encompass an inventive concept.
Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As stated above, the additional limitations in the present claims are a computing system, a blockchain network, a memory, at least one processor, and a computer. The blockchain is being used as normal. That is, “data indicating that the second user is provided with the generated first reward, and keeping, the principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user” is transmitted to the blockchain network. The “blockchain network” receives information from the abstract idea.
Even if “transmitting, to a blockchain network, by the computing system, data indicating that the second user is provided with the generated first reward, and keeping the principal cryptocurrency owned by the first user” was considered an additional element (which the examiner does not believe), it would be considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))
The examiner maintains that present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as stated above. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art.
The examiner maintains that claims 1-20 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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