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 communications filed on 01/02/2026.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, 17, and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: line 36, Claim 9: line 32, and Claim 17: line 24 recite the limitation “a corresponding validator computing device.” “A corresponding validator computing device” is previously recited in Claim 1: lines 22-23, Claim 9: line 17, and Claim 17: line 9. Is the corresponding validator computing device recited in Claim 1: line 36, Claim 9: line 32, and Claim 17: line 24 different than a corresponding validator computing device previously recited in Claim 1: lines 22-23, Claim 9: line 17, and Claim 17: line 9? It appears there is a typographical mistake since the specification only points to a single instance of a corresponding validator computing device. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claim 1: line 36, Claim 9: line 32, and Claim 17: line 24 as “the corresponding validator computing device.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2: line 2 recites the limitation “a blockchain.” A “blockchain” is previously recited in Independent Claim 1: line 2. Is the blockchain recited in Claim 2: line 2 different than a blockchain previously recited in Claim 1: line 2? It appears there is a typographical mistake since the specification only points to a single instance of a blockchain. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claim 2: line 2 as “the blockchain.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15: line 2 recite the limitation “wherien the instructions further… .” The word “wherein” is misspelled as “wherien”. It appears this is a grammatical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claim 15: line 1 as “wherein the instructions further… .” 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded, without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; Claim 9 is directed to a computing platform, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; and Claim 17 is method to a computing platform, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising: a ledger computing system comprising a blockchain; a plurality of validator computing devices, wherein each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices is associated with the ledger computing system; and a proof of influence validation system comprising: one or more processors, wherein each processor of the one or more processors is associated with one or more different devices; and non-transitory memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the proof of influence validation system to: select, based on an influence value associated with a user corresponding to each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices, a first number of validator computing devices of the plurality of validator computing devices; assign, by a proof of influence engine and based on a corresponding influence value associated with each validator computing device, a proof of work algorithm, wherein a difficulty of an assigned proof of work algorithm corresponds to the corresponding influence value associated with a particular computing device; generate, based on the proof of work algorithm associated with each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices and by a proof of work engine, a logical puzzle for solving by each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices, wherein the complexity of the logical puzzle is unique to a corresponding validator computing device and corresponds to the corresponding influence value; calculate, by an efficiency calculation engine, an energy efficiency score and a computational efficiency score; identify, based on an indication that a winning validator computing device has solved its associated logical puzzle, an incentive to be awarded, wherein the incentive comprises an amount of cryptocurrency; trigger, based on the identification of the incentive, transfer of the incentive to a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device; and recalculate, for each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices, the corresponding influence value, wherein a higher influence value enables generation of an easier proof of work algorithm and a lower influence value enables generation of a harder proof of work algorithm and wherein the easier proof of work algorithm results in lesser computationally intensive logical puzzles that reduce energy consumption of a corresponding validator computing device. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of validating multiple blocks where some of the blocks underlying information may be incorrect and mitigating the risk concerning the overall integrity of the cryptocurrency exchange; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also processing cryptocurrency data and transferring the incentive(s) to be awarded, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 are directed to a system, which recites the series of steps that describe the abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded. Furthermore, dependent claim 2-5 and 7-8 is directed to a system, which recites the steps: wherein the ledger computing system comprises a distributed ledger computing system comprising a blockchain; wherein the ledger computing system comprises a distributed quantum ledger; wherein the ledger computing system comprises a centralized ledger; wherein the instructions further cause the proof of influence validation computing system to: receive, via a network, energy efficiency statistical information from each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices; and calculate, based on the energy efficiency statistical information, updated complexity parameters; wherein the instructions further cause the proof of influence validation computing system to recalculate a complexity parameter based on a digital reputation score associated with each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices, wherein the reputation score corresponds to a reputation status of a digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices; and wherein the reputation status of a digital wallet corresponds to whether the digital wallet is classified as one of a benign digital wallet and a tainted digital wallet (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of validating multiple blocks where some of the blocks underlying information may be incorrect and mitigating the risk concerning the overall integrity of the cryptocurrency exchange; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also processing cryptocurrency data and transferring the incentive(s) to be awarded, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-8 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, network, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the additional elements, a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, network, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, network, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet, is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, network, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Claim 9 is directed to a computing platform comprising: one or more processors, wherein each processor of the one or more processors is associated with one or more different devices; and non-transitory memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause a proof of influence validation system to: select, based on an influence value associated with a user corresponding to each validator computing device of a plurality of validator computing devices, a first number of validator computing devices of the plurality of validator computing devices; assign, by a proof of influence engine and based on a corresponding influence value associated with each validator computing device, a proof of work algorithm, wherein a difficulty of an assigned proof of work algorithm corresponds to the corresponding influence value associated with a particular computing device; generate, based on the proof of work algorithm associated with each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices and by a proof of work engine, a logical puzzle for solving by each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices, wherein the complexity of the logical puzzle is unique to a corresponding validator computing device and corresponds to the corresponding influence value; calculate, by an efficiency calculation engine, an energy efficiency score and a computational efficiency score; identify, based on an indication that a winning validator computing device has solved its associated logical puzzle to add a new block to a digital ledger stored on a ledger computing system, an incentive to be awarded, wherein the incentive comprises an amount of cryptocurrency; trigger, based on the identification of the incentive, transfer of the incentive to a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device; and recalculate, for each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices, the corresponding influence value, wherein a higher influence value enables generation of an easier proof of work algorithm and a lower influence value enables generation of a harder proof of work algorithm and wherein the easier proof of work algorithm results in lesser computationally intensive logical puzzles that reduce energy consumption of a corresponding validator computing device. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of validating multiple blocks where some of the blocks underlying information may be incorrect and mitigating the risk concerning the overall integrity of the cryptocurrency exchange; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also processing cryptocurrency data and transferring the incentive(s) to be awarded, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a computing platform, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of influence validation system, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a computing platform, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of influence validation system, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computing platform, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of influence validation system, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10-16 are directed to a computing platform, which recites the series of steps that describe the abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded. Furthermore, dependent claim 10-13 and 15-16 is directed to a computing platform, which recites the steps: wherein the ledger computing system comprises a distributed ledger computing system comprising a blockchain; wherein the ledger computing system comprises a distributed quantum ledger; wherein the ledger computing system comprises a centralized ledger; wherein the instructions further cause the proof of influence validation computing system to: receive, via a network, energy efficiency statistical information from each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices; and calculate, based on the energy efficiency statistical information, updated complexity parameters; wherein the instructions further cause the proof of influence validation computing system to recalculate a complexity parameter based on a digital reputation score associated with each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices, wherein the reputation score corresponds to a reputation status of a digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices; and wherein the reputation status of a digital wallet corresponds to whether the digital wallet is classified as a benign digital wallet or a tainted digital wallet (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of validating multiple blocks where some of the blocks underlying information may be incorrect and mitigating the risk concerning the overall integrity of the cryptocurrency exchange; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also processing cryptocurrency data and transferring the incentive(s) to be awarded, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 10-16 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a computing platform, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of influence validation system, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, network, a digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the additional elements, a computing platform, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of influence validation system, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, network, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a computing platform, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of influence validation system, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, network, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a computing platform, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of influence validation system, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, distributed ledger computing system, blockchain, distributed quantum ledger, centralized ledger, network, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, digital wallet, benign digital wallet, and tainted digital wallet, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Claim 17 is directed to a method comprising: selecting, based on an influence value associated with a user corresponding to each validator computing device of a plurality of validator computing devices, a first number of validator computing devices of the plurality of validator computing devices; generating, based on a proof of work algorithm associated with each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices and by a proof of work engine, a logical puzzle for solving by each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices, wherein the complexity of the logical puzzle is unique to a corresponding validator computing device and corresponds to the corresponding influence value; calculating, by an efficiency calculation engine, an energy efficiency score and a computational efficiency score; identifying, based on an indication that a winning validator computing device has solved its associated logical puzzle to add a new block to a digital ledger stored on a ledger computing system, an incentive to be awarded, wherein the incentive comprises an amount of cryptocurrency; triggering, based on the identification of the incentive, transfer of the incentive to a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device; and recalculating, for each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices, the corresponding influence value, wherein a higher influence value enables generation of an easier proof of work algorithm and a lower influence value enables generation of a harder proof of work algorithm and wherein the easier proof of work algorithm results in lesser computationally intensive logical puzzles that reduce energy consumption of a corresponding validator computing device. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of validating multiple blocks where some of the blocks underlying information may be incorrect and mitigating the risk concerning the overall integrity of the cryptocurrency exchange; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also processing cryptocurrency data and transferring the incentive(s) to be awarded, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of work algorithm, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of work algorithm, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 17 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of work algorithm, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-20 are directed to a method, which recites the series of steps that describe the abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded. Furthermore, dependent claim 18-20 is directed to a method, which recites the steps: further comprising recalculating a complexity parameter based on a digital reputation score associated with each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices, wherein the reputation score corresponds to a reputation status of a digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices; receiving, via a network, energy efficiency statistical information from each validation computing device of the plurality of validation computing devices; and calculating, based on the energy efficiency statistical information, updated complexity parameters (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of validating multiple blocks where some of the blocks underlying information may be incorrect and mitigating the risk concerning the overall integrity of the cryptocurrency exchange; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also processing cryptocurrency data and transferring the incentive(s) to be awarded, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of work algorithm, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, and network are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the additional elements, each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of work algorithm, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, and network, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of work algorithm, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, and network is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: each validator computing device, plurality of validator computing devices, first number of validator computing devices, proof of work algorithm, proof of work engine, corresponding validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, winning validator computing device, new block, digital ledger, ledger computing system, cryptocurrency, a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, harder proof of work algorithm, digital wallet associated with corresponding users of each validation computing device, and network, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims: Claim 1, 9, and 17 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/02/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that “(1) claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and (2) even assuming, without conceding, that claim 1 is deemed to be directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 recites features that contain an "inventive concept" amounting to "significantly more" than any such abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101……. Claim 1 is not directed to the alleged abstract idea or any other abstract idea. Rather, like the patent-eligible claims in Enfish, claim 1 is "directed to an improvement to computer functionality" rather than "being directed to an abstract idea" and is thus properly treated as patent- eligible "even at the first step of the Alice analysis." See Enfish, 118 USPQ2d at 1689. In particular, claim 1 is directed to improvements in computer functionality that efficiently and effectively reduce computational power requirements on their systems and/or reduce energy consumption.” While these technological improvements may provide non-technical benefits, claim 1 also provides "an improvement to computer functionality" and therefore is not directed to an abstract idea. See Enfish, 118 USPQ2d at 1689; see also USPTO Memorandum dated November 2, 2016, regarding "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions"……. Not only do the claims recited technological functionality unable to be performed without computer devices, the claimed technological functionality, as a whole, clearly allows computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer, as evidenced by lack of cited references performing the claimed functionality. For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to recite an abstract idea and, therefore, meets the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Furthermore, Applicant argues that “even assuming, without conceding, that claim 1 is deemed to be directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 recites features that contain an "inventive concept" amounting to "significantly more" than any such abstract idea…. However, even assuming, without conceding, that the features recited in claim 1 could be properly analogized to computer functions that are "'well-understood, routine, conventional activities' previously known to the industry," as asserted by the Office Action at p. 9, claim 1, as amended, recites a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" that amounts to an "inventive concept" when the claim is considered as an ordered combination. See BASCOM, 119 USPQ2d at 1242. The features of claim 1, when considered as a whole and in combination with the other features recited in claim 1, "transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application." See Enfish, 118 USPQ2d at 1688. Moreover, the fact that the claim is distinguishable over the prior art, as evidenced by the lack of any art-based rejections, further suggests that the claim recites a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" of features. See BASCOM, 119 USPQ2d at 1242. Thus, even if claim 1 is deemed to include an abstract idea, "an inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of [features recited in claim 1] that transform[s] the abstract idea [...] into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea." See id. at 1244. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded, without significantly more. The series of steps recited in the amended claims describe an abstract idea, which is mitigating risk of validating multiple blocks where some of the blocks underlying information may be incorrect and mitigating the risk concerning the overall integrity of the cryptocurrency exchange; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also processing cryptocurrency data and transferring the incentive(s) to be awarded, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, the system limitations, e.g., a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm. Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “a system comprising: a ledger computing system comprising a blockchain; a plurality of validator computing devices, wherein each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices is associated with the ledger computing system; and a proof of influence validation system comprising: one or more processors, wherein each processor of the one or more processors is associated with one or more different devices; and non-transitory memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the proof of influence validation system to: select, based on an influence value associated with a user corresponding to each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices, a first number of validator computing devices of the plurality of validator computing devices; assign, by a proof of influence engine and based on a corresponding influence value associated with each validator computing device, a proof of work algorithm, wherein a difficulty of an assigned proof of work algorithm corresponds to the corresponding influence value associated with a particular computing device; generate, based on the proof of work algorithm associated with each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices and by a proof of work engine, a logical puzzle for solving by each validator computing device of the first number of validator computing devices, wherein the complexity of the logical puzzle is unique to a corresponding validator computing device and corresponds to the corresponding influence value; calculate, by an efficiency calculation engine, an energy efficiency score and a computational efficiency score; identify, based on an indication that a winning validator computing device has solved its associated logical puzzle, an incentive to be awarded, wherein the incentive comprises an amount of cryptocurrency; trigger, based on the identification of the incentive, transfer of the incentive to a digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device; and recalculate, for each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices, the corresponding influence value, wherein a higher influence value enables generation of an easier proof of work algorithm and a lower influence value enables generation of a harder proof of work algorithm and wherein the easier proof of work algorithm results in lesser computationally intensive logical puzzles that reduce energy consumption of a corresponding validator computing device” are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed above under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Under Step 2A: Prong 2, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply selecting, assigning, generating, calculating, identifying, triggering, transferring, recalculating, enabling, and outputting data (i.e., influence data associated with a user, influence values, energy efficiency score, computational efficiency score, incentive data, amount of cryptocurrency, identification of the incentive, higher influence data, lower influence value, and etc.). The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Unlike Enfish and the USPTO Memorandum dated November 2, 2016, the recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, and output data. Unlike Enfish and the USPTO Memorandum dated November 2, 2016, the recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (influence values, efficiency scores, incentive data), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed. Additionally, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of identifying and transferring an incentive to be awarded. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive. The claims, as amended, recites steps at a high level of generality. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting; therefore, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. Additionally, the ‘ automation’ features simply amounts to mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, the automation feature is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality or technology/technical improvements (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(1)). The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive
Additionally, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm. The additional elements: a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims, as amended, recite a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Unlike Enfish, the claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Hence, the claims, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. Unlike Enfish, the improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have determined that processing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the recited combination of steps in claims 1, 9, and 17 operate in a well-understood, routine, conventional and generic way. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Hence, unlike Bascom, the additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
As explained above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements: a ledger computing system, blockchain, plurality of validator computing devices, proof of influence validation system, one or more processors, one or more different devices, non-transitory memory, proof of work engine, validator computing device, proof of influence engine, proof of work algorithm, assigned proof of work algorithm, particular computing device, cryptocurrency, corresponding validator computing device, winning validator computing device, efficiency calculation engine, digital wallet associated with the winning validator computing device, easier proof of work algorithm, and harder proof of work algorithm, are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to receiving and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations, as amended, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with respect to Applicant's argument that “the fact that the claim is distinguishable over the prior art, as evidenced by the lack of any art-based rejections, further suggests that the claim recites a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" of features;” Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91,101 USPQ2d at 1973 (MPEP 2106.05(1)). As made clear by the courts, the "'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1)). Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Arnold (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2016/0260169-A1) “Systems and methods for updating a distributed ledger based on partial validations of transactions”
Zhu (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2023/0297983-A1) “Systems and methods for granting smart contracts”
Blackburn (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2024/0070233-A1) “System for verifying digital representation of objects and events”
Wright (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2024/0396754-A1) “Methods and systems for distributed blockchain functionalities”
Reinsberg (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2019/0179806-A1) “Decentralized database associating public keys and communications addresses”
Farag (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2020/0186458-A1) “Autonomous system route validation via blockchain”
Roy (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2022/0094555-A1) “Validator control for transaction between blockchains”
Doney (U.S. Patent Publication No. US-2023/0359604-A1) “Method and apparatus for creating and managing user configurable objects and functions on distributed ledger networks”
Edwards (U.S. Patent No. US-12,380,443-B1) “Cryptocurrency staking validator system”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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 W. ANDERSON can be reached on 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights