DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the request for continued examination on December 4, 2025.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 5, 15, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 11-14, 16-18, and 20 have been withdrawn from examination.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-18, and 21 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21 are rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
This application was filed on September 18, 2023 and is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 17/869,884, which is a continuation of Application No. 16/861,769, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 16/851,184. The earlier filed applications were reviewed to determine whether the instant claims are entitled to the priority date of those applications. Claim 1 does not appear to be supported by the earlier filed applications. For example, the earlier filed applications do not appear to support fractionalizing the liquidity token into at least two shares by creating a wrapped liquidity token. They also do not appear to support a pricing function that is a set of smart contracts configured to translate the value of the first asset token in terms of the value of the second asset token. If Applicant believes that the instant claims are entitled to an effective filing date earlier than September 18, 2023, Applicant should provide a statement regarding the priority date for the claims and show where support is found in the priority document.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 4, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that “the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea but is rather inextricably tied to computer technology.” Remarks at 8. In support of this argument, Applicant compares the instant claims to DDR Holdings, Example 1, and Example 23. Id. at 8-10. Regarding DDR Holdings, the Court held that modification of conventional internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage provides an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a). In Example 1, as Applicant stated, claim 1 was found to be eligible because “[t]he claim is directed towards performing isolation and eradication of computer viruses, worms, and other malicious code, a concept inextricably tied to computer technology and distinct from the types of concepts found by the courts to be abstract.” In Example 23, claim 1 was found to be eligible because it solved a “problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces.”
Regarding examples 1 and 23, the USPTO’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) states, in section B-6, that “[e]xisting examples 1-36 were issued prior to the 2019 PEG, and some of them present analysis that may not be entirely consistent with the 2019 PEG. Thus, although all the claims indicated as eligible in prior Examples 1-36 are still eligible today, you should use these examples with caution.” Additionally, both DDR Holdings and the examples include claims that are improving computer related technology. On the other hand, the instant claims are not improving any technology, but instead are using existing technology to implement an abstract idea. For example, rather than being rooted in technology, the instant claims are using technology and implementing an abstract idea in a technological environment.
Applicant further argues that “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. More specifically, the claimed invention is directed to overcoming problems with trading specific assets on a decentralized computing platform, including the problem of recording transactions on a blockchain distributed ledger network without any trusted intermediaries resulting in liquidity loss. Moreover, the claimed invention is necessarily rooted in computer technology because it is directed to the use of Distributed Ledger Technology and tokenization.” Remarks at 10. However, Applicant is describing a business problem, i.e., a problem related to the abstract idea. For example, Applicant has not shown an improvement to technology such as computer networks.
Applicant further argues that “[t]he claim as a whole is directed to providing tokenized liquidity, via tokenized asset pairs and a liquidity token, in a decentralized computing environment, in which setting a price of conversion and transferring dividend payments are only two parts/steps of providing tokenized liquidity.” Remarks at 11. Applicant further asserts that “[t]he specific features of a liquidity token are specific elements not analogous to a fundamental economic practice but features which overcome problems of trading value in a decentralized environment. Additionally, the tokenized liquidity provided by the present application overcomes specific problems associated with decentralized trading networks, including lost and/or inefficient value in trading transactions.” Id. However, Applicant is using existing technology to solve a business problem.
Applicant further argues, with respect to step 2A, prong two, that the claims are eligible for reasons similar to claim 3 of Example 47. Remarks at 12-16. However, detecting network intrusions and taking real-time remedial actions (claim 3 of Example 47) is different from using distributed ledgers for market liquidity (instant claims). Claim 3 of Example 47 provides enhanced security, which is an improvement in the technical field of network intrusion. No such improvement is found in the instant claims.
Applicant further argues, with respect to step 2B, that “[t]he decentralized computing platform of the claimed invention is essential to the operation of the claimed invention, plays a significant part in permitting the claimed invention to be performed, and is not a general-purpose CPU.” Remarks at 17. However, the method is performed “by a computer platform including a processor and a memory.” Applicant has not shown that this is a special purpose or particular computing device.
Applicant additionally refers to the SiRF Technology decision in the 2014 Interim Guidance (Remarks at 18-20), but as noted above, this guidance should be used with caution. Applicant compares this decision to the instant claims and asserts that “[t]he claimed invention cannot be performed without the decentralized computing platform, including at least one processor and at least one memory.” Id. at 20. However, there is no requirement that the abstract idea must be able to be performed without the device that is being used to implement the abstract idea.
As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The term “liquidity token” is being interpreted based on the definition provided in paragraph 0062 of the Specification.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21, which recite a method and are therefore directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold:
1. A method executed by a computer platform including a processor and a memory for creation and management of tokenized asset pairs providing tokenized liquidity in a decentralized computing environment, comprising:
associating a first asset token and a second asset token with an asset wallet address, wherein an asset wallet associated with the asset wallet address contains the first asset token and the second asset token;
issuing a liquidity token on a distributed ledger, wherein the liquidity token includes a unique token identifier and the asset wallet address for the asset wallet containing the first asset token and the second asset token;
wrapping, by the processor, the liquidity token with a token wrapper by assigning ownership of the liquidity token to the token wrapper to create a data structure that permits fractional ownership of a tokenized asset pair represented by the liquidity token;
fractionalizing the liquidity token into at least two shares;
executing a pricing function, wherein the pricing function is a set of smart contracts configured to set a price of conversion between the value of the first asset token and the value of the second asset token according to sustained liquidity demands; and
transferring dividend payments to a fund owner, wherein the fund owner is a holder of the wrapped liquidity token, wherein the dividend payments reflect a revenue, wherein the revenue is determined, based in part, on spread and transaction fees, and wherein the spread is a difference in the price of conversion between a flow and a reverse flow.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least two shares is associated with an additional asset wallet.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising issuing a composite token, wherein the composite token includes a second unique identifier and at least one of the at least two shares of the liquidity token.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising adding an additional asset token to the asset wallet included in the liquidity token, wherein the additional asset token is added via an out-of-band transfer.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising a smart contract transferring rights represented in the liquidity token into rights associated with at least one other token type.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising registering the first asset token as a unique record associated with a first asset and the second asset token as a unique record in association with a second asset, wherein the unique record associated with the first asset and the unique record associated with the second asset are stored in a memory of an asset registry of the computer platform.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising the computer platform transferring the first asset token, the second asset token, and/or the liquidity token to an additional distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger and the additional distributed ledger are heterogeneous.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising the computer platform executing a request to transmit a ratio of units of a first asset associated with the first asset token per unit of a second asset associated with the second asset token, deliver an amount of the second asset on request, and accept delivery of an amount of the first asset in exchange for the amount of the second asset.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising an elastic securitization algorithm executing a set of smart contracts configured to allocate resources invested in the first asset token and the second asset token to meet an underlying liquidity need.
21. The method of claim 1, further comprising conducting a valuation of the liquidity token, wherein the valuation is available via the computer platform in real time.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claim recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim limitations identified as abstract idea are directed to setting a price of conversion and transferring dividend payments. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice as it involves payments and it is a commercial or legal interaction such as a legal obligation, sales activity or behavior, or business relation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The technology related components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. For example, a general purpose computing device is used to perform the claimed steps of associating, issuing, fractionalizing, executing, and transferring. Simply implementing the abstract idea using generic computers or devices is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a blockchain environment. Employing well known technology within a blockchain environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Hill et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0287175 A1. Hill teaches a decentralized investment fund that issues ownership tokens on a shared ledger.
Pierce et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0028276 A1. Pierce teaches a blockchain with digital tradeable tokens.
Chang, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0097530 A1. Chang teaches a blockchain trading system platform that receives token liquidation requests. Tokens are liquidated and recorded on the blockchain.
Lohe et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0085545 A1. Lohe teaches virtual currency transactions.
Wilson, JR. et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 20170103385 A1. Wilson teaches a platform for settling transactions involving digital rights and memorializing the transactions on a distributed ledger.
Tilfors, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0258153 A1. Tilfors teaches an electronic market platform that allows participants to transact and refine initially agreed-to matches.
de Jong et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,657,595 B2. This reference teaches a system and method for issuing, managing, and transferring asset-backed asset tokens.
Youb et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0080392 A1. This reference teaches a method for creating an asset-backed distributed ledger token representing a smart contract.
Wrapped Tokens (“Wrapped Tokens. A multi-institutional framework for tokenizing any asset.” Whitepaper v0.2, https://wbtc.network/assets/wrapped-tokens-whitepaper.pdf (Jan. 24, 2019).).
Konings, Herwig. “Security Tokens Explained in 4 Layers; A Guide for Investors and Issuers,” Security Token Market Blog, https://blog.stomarket.com/security-tokens-explained-in-4-layers-a-guide-for-investors-and-issuers-a58b53a8da30?gi=9bde01c298e8 (Nov. 27, 2018). Konings discusses exchanges and liquidity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights