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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 1: Ineligible.
STEP 1:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses a computer system (e.g., hardware such as processors and memories) for generating and facilitating an exchange of one or more non-fungible tokens. The system is directed to at least a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1):
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites
one or more processors;
and one or more memories having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
identify one or more retirement assets associated with a user;
receive, via a user interface of an application running on a user device, beneficiary data associated with the one or more retirement assets from the user, the beneficiary data including an asset distribution scheme;
retrieve, via application programming interface, data associated with the one or more retirement assets from one or more financial institutions from at least one of a financial institution computing system or a third-party financial institution computing system;
generate one or more non-fungible tokens representing respective retirement assets and associated beneficiary data by triggering a smart contract function to mint the one or more non-fungible tokens, assign respective unique token identifiers to the one or more non-fungible tokens, and record the unique token identifiers on a distributed ledger, wherein the asset distribution scheme is encoded as one or more smart contracts;
receive a notification of a distribution event associated with the one or more retirement assets; verify the notification of the distribution event; and
distribute one or more retirement assets via one or more smart contracts.
Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute fundamental economic practice. In order words, the bolded claim limitations describe distribution of one or more retirement assets based on a triggering (distribution) event. Therefore, the bolded claim limitations fall under the abstract idea category of “certain methods of organizing human activity” group in the form of fundamental economic practice. (Step 2A1-Yes). See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2):
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. Examiner submits that the foregoing italicized limitation(s) constitute the additional elements.
The claim recites additional elements of processors (including user devices with user interface and financial institution computing systems), memories, application programming interface, in a distributed ledger (blockchain) network environment. The processors and memories in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors and memories performing generic computer functions. These elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The distributed ledger (blockchain) network limitation involving smart contracts is simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the additional elements of “generate one or more non-fungible tokens representing respective retirement assets and associated beneficiary data by triggering a smart contract function to mint the one or more non-fungible tokens, assign respective unique token identifiers to the one or more non-fungible tokens, and record the unique token identifiers on a distributed ledger, wherein the asset distribution scheme is encoded as one or more smart contracts”; and “distribute one or more retirement assets via one or more smart contracts” are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)
STEP 2B:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the steps “generate one or more non-fungible tokens representing respective retirement assets and associated beneficiary data by triggering a smart contract function to mint the one or more non-fungible tokens, assign respective unique token identifiers to the one or more non-fungible tokens, and record the unique token identifiers on a distributed ledger, wherein the asset distribution scheme is encoded as one or more smart contracts”; and “distribute one or more retirement assets via one or more smart contracts”, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these steps are anything other than conventional steps (see Specification at 0018), and Sutton-Shearer et al. (USPAP 2023/0027380) at paragraph [0005]; Sun (USPAP 2023/0118312) at paragraph [0022]; Han et al. (USPAP 2024/0160739) at paragraph [0051]; and Najmr (USPAP 2024/0220952) at paragraph [0037] indicate that the steps of minting NFTs representing something of value and using smart contracts (with its inherent advantages) to specify rules (distribution event) to trigger transfer of assets are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field (as they are here). Accordingly, a conclusion that these steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer option 3. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 8 and 15 recite corresponding method and non-transitory machine-readable medium equivalents of claim 1. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite wherein the distribution event includes at least one of: (i) death of the user; (ii) a required minimum distribution; (iii) an early distribution; and (iv) a loan.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite identifying a change in one or more assets; determining a need to retokenize one or more non-fungible tokens representing the one or more assets using a machine learning model; and retokenizing the one or more assets.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above. Furthermore, the use of machine learning model is simply generic data processing, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite receiving market data; and generating, using a machine learning model, recommendations for maximizing a value of the one or more retirement assets based on at least one of: (i) the asset distribution scheme, (ii) the beneficiary data, (iii) the one or more assets, and (iv) the market data.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above. Furthermore, the use of machine learning model is simply generic data processing, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite identifying one or more unallocated assets; and generating, using a machine learning model, recommendations for allocating the one or more unallocated assets to one or more beneficiaries in the asset distribution scheme.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above. Furthermore, the use of machine learning model is simply generic data processing, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 recite receiving life event data associated with the user; and minting a token representing the life event data.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 7 and 14 recite wherein the one or more assets includes at least one of: (i) a pension account; (ii) a bank account; (iii) a brokerage account; (iv) real property; (v) a stock; (vi) a bond, (vii) an individual retirement account, (viii) a 401(k) account; (ix) a 403(b) account; (x) a health savings account; and (xi) a flexible spending account.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations “retrieve, via application programming interface, data associated with the one or more retirement assets from one or more financial institutions; generate one or more non-fungible tokens representing respective retirement assets and associated beneficiary data by triggering a smart contract function to mint the one or more non-fungible tokens, assign respective unique token identifiers to the one or more non-fungible tokens, and record the unique token identifiers on a distributed ledger, wherein the asset distribution scheme is encoded as one or more smart contracts; and distribute one or more retirement assets via one or more smart contracts” are computer-centric functions and do not recite an exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The retrieving step is merely a data gathering step.
According to the analysis above, the generating and distribution steps were not part of the abstract idea (judicial exception) under the STEP 2A (PRONG 1). Rather, they were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities under the STEP 2A (PRONG 2) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
For purposes of insignificant extra-solution activities, Examiner is obligated to reevaluate the steps under the STEP 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Examiner has determined that these steps are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field with supporting references such as Sutton-Shearer et al. (USPAP 2023/0027380) at paragraph [0005]; Sun (USPAP 2023/0118312) at paragraph [0022]; Han et al. (USPAP 2024/0160739) at paragraph [0051]; and Najmr (USPAP 2024/0220952) at paragraph [0037]. This is as required under Berkheimer Memo, option 3.
Claims are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are as discussed in prior office action.
Lam et al. (USPAP 2020/0052903);
Degenhardt (USPAP 2025/0131500); and
Bitragunta (USPN 12,282,962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691