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 .
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, 3-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category a method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or claim 10 or claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea of executing one or more jobs, the one or more jobs comprising: a first job that determines one or more support and resistance levels associated with a crypto token based at least in part on one or more characteristics of the crypto token, one or more historical blockchain transactions associated with the crypto token, or a combination thereof, wherein a token page identifies the one or more support and resistance levels determined based at least in part on executing the one or more jobs; and a second job that determines whether a current characteristic of the crypto token satisfies a notification condition, wherein the notification condition is a support level threshold, a resistance level threshold, or both; determining , based at least in part on executing the one or more jobs that supports exchange of crypto tokens, that the current characteristic of the crypto token satisfies the notification condition associated with; determining that at least one user profile of a plurality of user profiles associated with is classified as interested in the crypto token; transmitting, after determining that the current characteristic satisfies the notification condition and based at least in part on determining that the at least one user profile is classified as interested in the crypto token, a payload that causes a push notification associated with installed to be displayed at operable to interact with the custodial token platform, wherein the push notification is indicative of the notification condition; receiving a request for information associated with the crypto token, wherein the request is received in response to an input that activates the push notification; and transmitting, after receiving the request, a response that includes the information associated with the crypto token, wherein the response causes display of the token page associated with the crypto token and wherein the token page includes notification condition information included in the payload. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements of on one or more servers of a custodial token platform; on the one or more servers of the custodial token platform; an application installed on a plurality of devices; the application installed on at least one user device of the plurality of user devices; a user device of the at least one user device; by the one or more servers and the application installed on the at least one user device the at least one user device via one or more user interfaces; by the one or more servers and; via the one or more user interfaces; by the one or more servers and; and the one or more user interfaces, from the application, at the user device; one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus are no more than merely generic computer components and steps applied to the abstract idea to perform the functionalities of the abstract idea steps, such as determining, transmitting, receiving information. The application of the abstract idea to the crypto token is merely limiting the abstract idea to one field of use and merely applying the blockchain technology.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional elements of on one or more servers of a custodial token platform; on the one or more servers of the custodial token platform; an application installed on a plurality of devices; the application installed on at least one user device of the plurality of user devices; a user device of the at least one user device; by the one or more servers and the application installed on the at least one user device the at least one user device via one or more user interfaces; by the one or more servers and; via the one or more user interfaces; by the one or more servers and; and the one or more user interfaces, from the application, at the user device; one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus is merely using generic computer systems and steps as tools to perform the abstract idea (“apply it”). Further the application of the crypto technology is additionally merely limiting the field of use to generic blockchain technology. This is supported by the original specification paragraph [0082] that describe the a general- purpose processor. As to the insignificant extra-solution active, please see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): 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; 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). Therefore, independent claim 1 or claim 10 or claim 17 is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3-9, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 12-16, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 10. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 18-20, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 17. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s arguments to 101 rejections that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claims are directed to abstract idea of executing one or more jobs, the one or more jobs comprising: a first job that determines one or more support and resistance levels associated with a crypto token based at least in part on one or more characteristics of the crypto token, one or more historical blockchain transactions associated with the crypto token, or a combination thereof, wherein a token page identifies the one or more support and resistance levels determined based at least in part on executing the one or more jobs; and a second job that determines whether a current characteristic of the crypto token satisfies a notification condition, wherein the notification condition is a support level threshold, a resistance level threshold, or both; determining , based at least in part on executing the one or more jobs that supports exchange of crypto tokens, that the current characteristic of the crypto token satisfies the notification condition associated with; determining that at least one user profile of a plurality of user profiles associated with is classified as interested in the crypto token; transmitting, after determining that the current characteristic satisfies the notification condition and based at least in part on determining that the at least one user profile is classified as interested in the crypto token, a payload that causes a push notification associated with installed to be displayed at operable to interact with the custodial token platform, wherein the push notification is indicative of the notification condition; receiving a request for information associated with the crypto token, wherein the request is received in response to an input that activates the push notification; and transmitting, after receiving the request, a response that includes the information associated with the crypto token, wherein the response causes display of the token page associated with the crypto token and wherein the token page includes notification condition information included in the payload. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to claims recite features that integrated any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. into a practical application under step 2A Prong Two, the examiner respectfully disagrees. T this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements of on one or more servers of a custodial token platform; on the one or more servers of the custodial token platform; an application installed on a plurality of devices; the application installed on at least one user device of the plurality of user devices; a user device of the at least one user device; by the one or more servers and the application installed on the at least one user device the at least one user device via one or more user interfaces; by the one or more servers and; via the one or more user interfaces; by the one or more servers and; and the one or more user interfaces, from the application, at the user device; one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus are no more than merely generic computer components and steps applied to the abstract idea to perform the functionalities of the abstract idea steps, such as determining, transmitting, receiving information. The application of the abstract idea to the crypto token is merely limiting the abstract idea to one field of use and merely applying the blockchain technology. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009); ii. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In-re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979); and iii. offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015) cases are non-precedential decisions and therefore not given weight. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to method for notification management, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the server is a generic purpose server. The applicant has not improved the server. In the current claim limitation, the processor is a generic purpose processor. The applicant has not improved the processor. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regard to SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are more analogous to precedential opinion of the Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics v. Fox, on page 12 of the Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics v. Fox: “The requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement….Iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning.” The current claims just applying crypto token threshold notifications to the transaction doesn’t make the claims eligible. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to claims are not directed to abstract idea and citing Core Wireless, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the patentable claims in Core Wireless, the current claims recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights