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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/17/2023.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/17/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/17/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “the claimed invention solves specific technical problems in custodial token platforms. As described, traditional principal and return amount computation involves exponential computation over time due to changing conversion rates. The claimed solution provides a technical improvement by enabling "tracking the wrapped staked crypto token," which may result in "less computing resource overhead to efficiently track the staked crypto token and/or the rewards earned" due to "the additional return amount, the first principal amount and the second principal amount associated with the user increas[ing] linearly with each return distribution."(Response at 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the wrapping of staked crypto tokens, which result in less computing resource overhead to efficiently track stacked crypto tokens, does not amount to an improvement to technology. Using less computer resources is not an improvement to computer technology, and tracking conversion rates for a first principal amount and a second principal amount to fundamental economic practice and therefore represents an abstract subject matter.
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a “tracking returns on staked tokens” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
method for token management, comprising:
receiving, at a custodial token platform and from a user, a request to wrap an initial first amount of a first crypto token that is staked in accordance with a protocol associated with a blockchain network supported distributed data store;
generating, by the custodial token platform and after receiving the request, a wrapped amount of a second crypto token associated with the user based at least in part on wrapping the first amount of the first crypto token;
detecting, by the custodial token platform, a first trigger event, wherein the user is associated with at least one prior principal amount and a prior return amount of the second crypto token as a result of a prior trigger event, and wherein the first trigger events the prior trigger event, or both comprise a return distribution for the first crypto token, the return distribution a result of staking the first crypto token via the protocol;
determining, by the custodial token platform and in response to detection of the first trigger event, an additional return amount, the determining comprising:
calculating, using an updated conversion ratio resulting from the return distribution, a first principal amount and a first return amount for the at least one prior principal amount,
calculating, using the updated conversion ratio, a second principal amount and a second return amount for the prior return amount, and
combining the first return amount and the second return amount as the additional return amount; and
associating, by the custodial token platform, the additional return amount, the first principal amount, and the second principal amount with the user, wherein the additional return amount, the first principal amount, and the second principal amount associated with the user increase linearly with each return distribution.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “at a custodial token platform”, “…a blockchain network supported distributed data store …”, “…crypto…”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of “tracking returns on staked tokens.”
Hence, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, an d16-20 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 3 recites additional elements of “…crypto…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of “…crypto…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the additional elements of “…crypto…” and “…blockchain network supported distributed data store.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of “…at a user interface …” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claims 10, and 17 recite the additional elements of “…crypto…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claims 11 and 18 recite the additional elements of “…crypto…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, 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.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Collinge et al. (US 2022/0321336 A1) Teaches: Credential management in distributed computing system.
Frederick et al. (US 2021/0021591 A1) Teaches: Multi-legged network attribution using tracking tokens and attribution.
Alen (US 2022/0414773 A1) Teaches: Method to create and trade securities from equity.
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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692