DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgments
This Action is in response to the patent application filed on December 20, 2023, a continuation of now abandoned application 15/973918 filed May 8, 2018. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “wherein to specify that the first one of the second type of type of…” The phrase “type of” is repeated. Appropriate correction, by removing the repeated phrase, is required.
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because they depend from claim 1, but are grouped with claim 19. According to 37 CFR 1.76(g): “ all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.” Therefore, it may be that claim 20 was intended to depend from claim 19 to follow this rule. Alternatively, it may be that claims 20 and 21 should precede claims 18 and 19 in order. However, 37 CFR 1.126 requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. Therefore, Applicant is required to either 1) amend claim 20 to depend from claim 19 or 2) cancel claims 18 and 19 and add the content of claims 18 and 19 as new independent claims 22 and 23. For the purpose of examination, claims 20 and 21 are interpreted as depending from claim 1.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-21 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1-21 of Application No. 18/829,128. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The examiner notes that claims 1-21 of this application are patentably indistinct from the originally filed claims 1-21 of the parent Application No. 15/973,918, which is abandoned as of January 22, 2024.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/829,128 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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 1-21 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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are directed to a product (system). Claim 18 is directed to a method (process) Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-21 are directed to the abstract idea of adjusting the quantity of an asset in circulation, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claims 1, 18 and 19, recite:
a system of decentralized control of a quantity of an electronic cryptocurrency in circulation in a cryptocurrency network of one or more physical computer nodes each storing a distributed ledger and each programmed with a cryptocurrency protocol that specifies decisions to be made by the cryptocurrency network, wherein the electronic cryptocurrency is implemented as a first type of electronic token in which ownership is stored on a distributed ledger and a quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation is controlled via a second type of electronic token that represents a future claim to a value of the first electronic type and a third type of electronic token that represents a right of its holder to receive a value of the first type of electronic token,
at least a first physical computer node comprising one or more storage devices configured to store the distributed ledger, and one or more physical processors programmed with computer program instructions, including the cryptocurrency protocol, that program the first physical computer node to:
identify a triggering event that indicates that the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation should be adjusted;
generate a decision to either contract or expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation based on the identified triggering event;
responsive to the decision, generate an interventive action that either: (i) issues a unit of the second type of electronic token to a holder of a unit of the first type of electronic token in exchange for the unit of the first type of electronic token in order to contract the quantity of the electronic cryptocurrency in circulation, or (ii) identifies one or more holders of the third type of electronic token and issues, to the one or more holders of the third type of electronic token, one or more units of the first type of electronic token in order to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation; and
generate a transaction that records the interventive action in the distributed ledger.
Specifically claims 1, 18 and 19 recite the abstract idea of adjusting the quantity of an asset in circulation, by either increasing the quantity by issuing new units of the asset or decreasing the quantity by exchanging units of the asset into a different type of asset. Therefore the claims recite a fundamental economic principle or practice grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and mathematical calculations/formulas grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for adjusting the quantity of an asset in circulation. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106). As stated in MPEP 2106.04 I. :
the Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection." Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of a cryptocurrency network of one or more physical computer nodes, at least a first physical computer node comprising one or more storage devices, electronic cryptocurrency, electronic token, and one or more physical processors, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of a cryptocurrency network of one or more physical computer nodes, at least a first physical computer node comprising one or more storage devices, electronic cryptocurrency, electronic token, and one or more physical processors, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a cryptocurrency network of one or more physical computer nodes, at least a first physical computer node comprising one or more storage devices, and one or more physical processors amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2, recites:
wherein to generate the interactive action, the first physical computer node is programmed to:
determine a number of units of the first type of electronic token that should be either added or removed from the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation;
generate a vote comprising the number of units;
provide the vote to the cryptocurrency network, wherein the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation is adjusted based on the vote and at least a second vote of at least one other node in the cryptocurrency network.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of at least one other node in the cryptocurrency network, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3, recites:
wherein the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation is adjusted based on a median of the quantity of the first type of electronic token specified by at least the vote and the second vote, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies which of the one or more physical computer nodes of the cryptocurrency network are permitted to vote, and wherein the first physical computer node is programmed to determine that it is permitted to provide the vote based on the cryptocurrency protocol.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the one or more physical computer nodes of the cryptocurrency network and the first physical computer node, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that holders of the second electronic type of token or holders of the third type of electronic token are permitted to vote, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies a reward for voting, and wherein the first computer node is programmed to:
identify at least one physical computer node that has voted within a predefined time period; and
cause the reward to be provided to the at least one physical computer node, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies a penalty for not voting, and wherein the first computer node is programmed to:
identify at least one physical computer node that has not voted within a predefined time period; and
cause the penalty to be imposed on the at least one physical computer node, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a number of the third type of electronic token should be increased at a certain rate over a period of time and that the number of the third type of electronic token is to be added to a pool of the third type of electronic token and made available for exchange for the first type of electronic token, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a number of units of the third type of electronic token should be decreased at a certain rate over a period of time and removed from each account of each holder of the third type of electronic token and wherein a total quantity of the third type of electronic token removed from each account of each holder of the third type of electronic token is added to a pool of the third type of electronic token and made available for exchange for the first type of electronic token, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10, recites:
wherein to generate the interventive action, the first physical computer node is programmed to:
responsive to the decision, generate an interventive action that either: (i) issues a unit of a second type of electronic token to a holder of a unit of the first type of electronic token in exchange for the unit of the first type of electronic token in order to contract the quantity of the electronic cryptocurrency in circulation, or (ii) identifies one or more holders of a third type of electronic token and issues, to the one or more holders of the third type of electronic token, one or more units of the first type of electronic token in order to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11, recites:
wherein the decision to either contract or expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation comprises a decision to expand the quantity, and wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a number of units of the first type of electronic token in circulation to be expanded is provided to the one or more holders of a third type of electronic token pro rata, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12, recites:
wherein the decision to either contract or expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation comprises a decision to contract the quantity, and
wherein the unit of the second type of electronic token issued to the holder of the unit of the first type of electronic token is added to a First-In-First-Out (“FIFO”) queue with other units of the second type of electronic token, and wherein to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token at a later time, the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue is to be provided with at least a portion of a face value of the second type of type of electronic token so long as the first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue has not expired, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13, recites:
wherein to specify that the first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue is to be provided with at least a portion of the face value of the second type of type of electronic token the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a first portion of the face value should be paid out at a first time as part of a first decision to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation, maintain a position of the first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue so long as the first one of the second type of type of electronic token continues to have value and has not expired, and specifies that a second portion of the face value should be paid out at a second time as part of a second decision to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a threshold value and a predefined amount of deviation from the threshold value that is acceptable, and wherein the triggering event comprises a detection of a value of the first type of electronic token has deviated from the threshold value by at least the predefined amount, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15, recites:
wherein the threshold value is pegged to a unit of value other than the first type of electronic token, the second type of electronic token and the third type of electronic token, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16, recites:
wherein the unit of value comprises a value of a fiat currency or a value of a basket of goods, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol is specific to at least a first geographic region and is separate from a second cryptocurrency protocol, specific to at least a second geographic region, that is identical to the cryptocurrency protocol other than the unit of value to which the first type of electronic token is pegged, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20, recites:
wherein the decision to either contract or expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation comprises a decision to expand the quantity, and wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that to expand the supply, the cryptocurrency network issues the one or more units of the first type of electronic token to at least the holder of the unit of the second type of electronic token,
which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21, recites:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that to expand the supply when there are no unexpired units of the second type of electronic token, the cryptocurrency network issues one or more units of the first type of electronic token to holders of a third type of electronic token, which further describes the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites “the first physical computer node is programmed to determine a number of units of the first type of electronic token that should be either added or removed…” However, a structure or an algorithm for performing the functions “determine a number of units of the first type of electronic token that should be either added or removed,” must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.and MPEP 2161.01 I.) Therefore, the claim lacks written description because the functional language specify a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the functions are performed.
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites “the first physical computer node is programmed to determine that it is permitted to provide the vote…” However, a structure or an algorithm for performing the functions “determine that it is permitted to provide the vote …,” must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.and MPEP 2161.01 I.) Therefore, the claim lacks written description because the functional language specify a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the functions are performed.
With respect to claim 10, the claim recites “the first physical computer node is programmed to : generate an interactive action…” However, a structure or an algorithm for performing the functions “generate…,” must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.and MPEP 2161.01 I.) Therefore, the claim lacks written description because the functional language specify a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the functions are performed.
Dependent claims 3-7, are rejected for incorporating the limitations of claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 19, each claim recites in the preamble: “a system of decentralized control of a quantity of an electronic cryptocurrency in circulation in a cryptocurrency network of one or more physical computer nodes each storing a distributed ledger…” (emphasis added) This recitation implies that the claimed system, separate from a cryptocurrency network of one or more physical nodes, controls cryptocurrency quantity in the cryptocurrency network. The claims further recite: “the system comprising: at least a first physical computer node comprising one or more storage devices configured to store the distributed ledger.” (emphasis added) It is not clear whether the “at least a first physical computer node,” is referring to the same “one or more physical computer nodes,” recited in the preamble or these are different physical computer nodes. In addition, it is not clear whether the claimed system and the cryptocurrency network are two different entities, both comprising physical computer nodes or they are the same entity. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the first electronic type.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites: “provide the vote to the cryptocurrency network, wherein the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation is adjusted based on the vote…” This recitation implies that the quantity of the first type of electronic token is adjusted by the cryptocurrency network. However, claim 2 depends from claim 1, and according to claim 1, adjusting the quantity of the electronic token is performed by the at least first physical computer node of the claimed system. It is not clear whether the quantity of the electronic tokens is adjusted by the claimed system or by the cryptocurrency network. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the interactive action.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the claim recites the limitation “the first computer node.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites “cause the reward to be provided…” This makes the scope of the claim unclear because no definition for the function “cause” is provided in the claim or in the Specification. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites “cause the penalty to be imposed…” This makes the scope of the claim unclear because no definition for the function “cause” is provided in the claim or in the Specification. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 18, the claim is directed to a method. However, the claim recites: “the method comprising: at least a first physical computer node comprising one or more storage devices…” This makes the scope of the claim unclear, because it is not clear how a method which is a process may comprise a physical computer. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the claim.
With respect to claims 20 and 21, each claim recites the limitation “the supply”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 20-21, are rejected for incorporating the limitations of claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-7, are rejected for incorporating the limitations of claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 is verbatim identical to a portion of claim 1 and does not further limit the scope of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Demarinis et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0330174,) in view of Kiron (US Patent Publication No. 2013/0046673.)
With respect to claims 1, 10, 18 and 19, Demarinis et al. teach:
a system of decentralized control of a quantity of an electronic cryptocurrency in circulation in a cryptocurrency network of one or more physical computer nodes (distributed decentralized computing system: [0036], having applications for stock split and repurchase (i.e., control quantity): [0044])
each storing a distributed ledger and each programmed with a cryptocurrency protocol that specifies decisions to be made by the cryptocurrency network, (each node stores a copy of the blockchain: [0003], [0007], [0037], claim 1)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “decisions to be made…,” indicates intended use of the protocol and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
wherein the electronic cryptocurrency is implemented as a first type of electronic token in which ownership is stored on a distributed ledger, (ownership information is stored on the blockchain: [0030]-[0031])
and a quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation is controlled via a second type of electronic token that represents a future claim to a value of the first electronic type and a third type of electronic token that represents a right of its holder to receive a value of the first type of electronic token, (various types of assets are exchanged: [0030], [0034], [0037], [0061], [0064]-[0065])
at least a first physical computer node comprising one or more storage devices configured to store the distributed ledger, and one or more physical processors programmed with computer program instructions, including the cryptocurrency protocol, that program the first physical computer node (each node stores a copy of the blockchain: [0003], [0007], [0037], claim 1)
generate a transaction that records the interventive action in the distributed ledger. (Transaction is generated: [0149] transactions including ownership information are recorded in the blockchain [0037], [0042], [0044]-[0045], [0053], [0056]-[0058])
Demarinis et al. do not explicitly teach; however, Kiron teaches:
identify a triggering event that indicates that the quantity of the first type of …token in circulation should be adjusted; (stop loss triggering event is determined for stocks (i.e., tokens): [0089], [0145])
generate a decision to either contract or expand the quantity of the first type of …token in circulation based on the identified triggering event; (stock split (i.e., expansion) or reverse stock split (i.e., contraction) based on market value: [0038], [0087], [0131]-[0132])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…decisions to either contract or expand…,” indicates intended use of the protocol and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
responsive to the decision, generate an interventive action that either: (i) issues a unit of the second type of electronic token to a holder of a unit of the first type of electronic token in exchange for the unit of the first type of electronic token in order to contract the quantity of the electronic cryptocurrency in circulation, (swapping funds by replacing with money (i.e., second type of token): [0089]-[0090])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…in order to contract…,” indicates intended use of the protocol and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
or (ii) identifies one or more holders of the third type of electronic token and issues, to the one or more holders of the third type of …token, one or more units of the first type of electronic token in order to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation; (split increases number of shares and shares are sold to new investors in exchange for money (i.e., third type of token)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…in order to expand…,” indicates intended use of the protocol and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
In addition, the examiner notes that with respect to claim 18, the claim recitation an intervention that either (i)…or (ii) indicates an optional limitation and for a prior art it is sufficient to teach one of the optional limitations. Therefore, a prior art that teaches option (i) in claim 18, does not need to teach option (ii), as option (ii) does not get patentable weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for adjusting number of assets based on triggering events, as taught by Kiron, into the blockchain network of Demarinis et al., in order to implement stop loss features in a blockchain environment and mitigate leverages and inverse leverages through recorded transactions. (Kiron: Abstract, [0007])
The examiner further takes official notice with respect to claim 10, because issuing shares (second type of electronic token) to a shareholder in exchange for currency (first type of electronic token) in order to contract the quantity of the currency in circulation, is old and well-known, and automating old and well-known features does not gain patentable weight.
With respect to claim 8, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 1.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a number of the third type of electronic token should be increased at a certain rate over a period of time and that the number of the third type of electronic token is to be added to a pool of the third type of electronic token and made available for exchange for the first type of electronic token.
However, the claim recitation indicates intended use of the protocol and does not further limit the scope of the claim because the functions “increasing” and “adding” are not positively recited.
In addition, the examiner notes that the claim recitation “wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that” indicates non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim, as a protocol is not performing a function and the claim recitation merely describes the protocol.
The examiner further takes official notice that increasing number of bonds (third type of electronic tokens) at a certain rate over a period of time, and adding the number of bonds to a pool of bonds, and making the bonds available for exchange for currency (first type of electronic tokens), is old and well-known, and automating old and well-known features does not gain patentable weight.
With respect to claim 9, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a number of units of the third type of electronic token should be decreased at a certain rate over a period of time and removed from each account of each holder of the third type of electronic token and wherein a total quantity of the third type of electronic token removed from each account of each holder of the third type of electronic token is added to a pool of the third type of electronic token and made available for exchange for the first type of electronic token.
However, the claim recitation “wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a number of units of the third type of electronic token should be decreased at a certain rate over a period of time and removed from each account of each holder of the third type of electronic token,” indicates intended use of the protocol and does not further limit the scope of the claim because the functions “decreasing” and “removing” are not positively recited. In addition, the claim recitation “wherein a total quantity of the third type of electronic token removed from each account of each holder of the third type of electronic token is added to a pool of the third type of electronic token and made available for exchange for the first type of electronic token,” indicate not positively recited functions, and does not further limit the scope of the claim because the functions “removing” and “adding” are not positively recited.
In addition, the examiner notes that the claim recitation “wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that” indicates non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim, as a protocol is not performing a function and the claim recitation merely describes the protocol.
The examiner further takes official notice that decreasing number of bonds (third type of electronic tokens) at a certain rate over a period of time, and removing the bonds from holders’’ accounts, and adding the bonds to a pool of bonds, and making the bonds available for exchange for currency (first type of electronic tokens), is old and well-known, and automating old and well-known features does not gain patentable weight.
With respect to claim 11, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Kiron teaches:
wherein the decision to either contract or expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation comprises a decision to expand the quantity, (stock split (i.e., expansion) or reverse stock split (i.e., contraction) based on market value: [0038], [0087], [0131]-[0132])
and wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a number of units of the first type of electronic token in circulation to be expanded is provided to the one or more holders of a third type of electronic token pro rata. (stop loss action based on portfolio weight: [0158], [0162]-[0163])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for adjusting number of assets based on triggering events, as taught by Kiron, into the blockchain network of Demarinis et al., in order to implement stop loss features in a blockchain environment and mitigate leverages and inverse leverages through recorded transactions. (Kiron: Abstract, [0007])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that” indicates non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim, as a protocol is not performing a function and the claim recitation merely describes the protocol.
In addition, the claim recitation: …to be provided…” indicates not positively recited limitation and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
The examiner further takes official notice that pro rata issuance of currency (the first type of electronic token) to holders of bonds (third type of electronic currency), (Buy Back) in order to expand the quantity of the currency in circulation, is old and well-known, and automating old and well-known features does not gain patentable weight.
With respect to claim 12, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 1.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein the unit of the second type of electronic token issued to the holder of the unit of the first type of electronic token is added to a First-In-First-Out (“FIFO”) queue with other units of the second type of electronic token, and wherein to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token at a later time, the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue is to be provided with at least a portion of a face value of the second type of type of electronic token so long as the first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue has not expired.
However, the examiner takes official notice that shares (the second type of electronic token) having expiration date, and FIFO accounting method, are old and well-known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the well-known practice of share issuance with expiration date, into the cryptocurrency system of Demarinis et al. and Kiron in order to contract cryptocurrency in circulation by assigning expiration date to shares.
With respect to claim 13, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 12.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein to specify that the first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue is to be provided with at least a portion of the face value of the second type of type of electronic token the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a first portion of the face value should be paid out at a first time as part of a first decision to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation, maintain a position of the first one of the second type of type of electronic token in the FIFO queue so long as the first one of the second type of type of electronic token continues to have value and has not expired, and specifies that a second portion of the face value should be paid out at a second time as part of a second decision to expand the quantity of the first type of electronic token in circulation.
However, the examiner takes official notice that shares (the second type of electronic token) having various expiration dates, and FIFO accounting method, are old and well-known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the well-known practice of share issuance with expiration date, into the cryptocurrency system of Demarinis et al. and Kiron in order to expand cryptocurrency in circulation by assigning various expiration dates to portions of shares.
With respect to claim 14, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 1.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that a threshold value and a predefined amount of deviation from the threshold value that is acceptable, and wherein the triggering event comprises a detection of a value of the first type of electronic token has deviated from the threshold value by at least the predefined amount.
However, the examiner takes official notice that assigning threshold value to a currency, and deciding on contraction or expansion based on a deviation from threshold value, is old and well-known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the well-known practice of
assigning threshold value and detecting deviations, into the cryptocurrency system of Demarinis et al. and Kiron in order to contract/expand cryptocurrency in circulation based on the threshold value.
With respect to claim 15, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 14.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein the threshold value is pegged to a unit of value other than the first type of electronic token, the second type of electronic token and the third type of electronic token.
However, the examiner takes official notice that assigning threshold value to a currency, by pegging the value to another asset, is old and well-known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the well-known practice of
pegging currency value to an asset, into the cryptocurrency system of Demarinis et al. and Kiron in order to contract/expand cryptocurrency in circulation based on the threshold value.
With respect to claim 16, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 15.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein the unit of value comprises a value of a fiat currency or a value of a basket of goods.
However, the examiner takes official notice that assigning threshold value to a currency, by pegging the value to another asset, is old and well-known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the well-known practice of
pegging currency value to an asset, into the cryptocurrency system of Demarinis et al. and Kiron in order to contract/expand cryptocurrency in circulation based on the threshold value.
With respect to claim 17, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 16.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol is specific to at least a first geographic region and is separate from a second cryptocurrency protocol, specific to at least a second geographic region, that is identical to the cryptocurrency protocol other than the unit of value to which the first type of electronic token is pegged.
However, the examiner takes official notice that assigning threshold value to a currency, by pegging the value to another asset, based on a geographical location, is old and well-known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the well-known practice of
pegging currency value to an asset, based on geographical location, into the cryptocurrency system of Demarinis et al. and Kiron in order to contract/expand cryptocurrency in circulation based on the threshold value.
With respect to claim 20, Demarinis et al. and Kiron teach the limitations of claim 1.
Demarinis et al. and Kiron do not explicitly teach:
wherein the cryptocurrency protocol specifies that to expand the supply, the cryptocurrency network issues the on