DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 and 24-26 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 and 24-26 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
Claims 24-26 are newly added.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that claim 1 is not directed to organizing human activity or a fundamental economic practice because the claim “implemented as a computer-specific, off-chain optimization process using particular software components and data structures to improve operation of a distributed ledger system.” and “addresses the technical problem of fragmentation by physically re-mapping digital tokens to minimize the number of physical assets required, thereby improving the efficiency of resource utilization and reducing the computational load within the decentralized computing environment.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) organizing assets allocation. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, by a ..., a plurality of transactions in a ... involving digital tokens backed by physical assets, the plurality of transactions spanning a first time period; identifying, by the ..., a previous position of the ... by capturing a snapshot of token ownership and physical asset to digital token allocation during a period immediately preceding the first time period; identifying, by the..., inventory information corresponding to the physical assets backing the digital tokens; defragmenting, by an ..., an allocation of physical assets to digital tokens based, at least in part, on the plurality of transactions, the previous position of the ..., and the inventory information corresponding to the physical assets to minimize a number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens when compared to the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens prior to the defragmenting, wherein minimizing the number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens minimizes a computational load of the ... when compared to a computational load of the ... prior to the defragmenting; and following the defragmenting, broadcasting, by the ..., the plurality of transactions to a ... of the ....” which is “fundamental economic principles or practices” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” 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 organizing assets allocation. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant maintains that the claim 1 is analogous to Example 39 because “Example 39 demonstrates eligibility where claims improve the accuracy of facial recognition through a specific iterative training algorithm. Similarly, claim I improves the functioning of a decentralized computing environment by addressing the technical issue of asset fragmentation.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As responded previously, example 39 is directed to facial recognition. Example 39 uses expanded training set with Neural Network to improve the accuracy of facial recognition. Unlike example 39, the instant application is directed to organizing asset allocation, i.e., mapping asset token to a physical asset, which is a business process. It does not improve functioning of a decentralized computing environment. As matter of fact, in claim 1, distributed ledger is merely a destination where the transactions be sent to for processing. The distributed ledger itself does not actively perform any function in the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 does not demonstrate an improvement to the distributed ledger technology.
Applicant continuously argue that the claim 1 is not an abstract idea because “claim I provides off-chain microservices to optimize and consolidate the backing allocations before ledger write, explicitly to "meet the computational demands of processing high transaction throughputs" and to "reduc[e] the processing requirements of such distributed systems.". The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 is directed to an off-chain platform that performs assets mapping between physical and digital assets. In claim 1, the distributed ledger is merely a destination where the transactions be sent to for processing. The distributed ledger itself does not actively perform any function in the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 does not demonstrate any improvement to the distributed ledger technology.
It is the applicant’s position “that claim I integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, providing significantly more.” because “the specific off-chain optimization of asset allocation, is not a generic computer implementation. Instead, it is a specific technical process that ensures the optimized allocation is efficiently reflected, verified, and synchronized across a decentralized computing environment, which involves complex distributed ledger protocols and network communications.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This 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 element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of computing system, off-chain microservice, decentralized computing environment, distributed ledger, processors, memory and computer readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of organizing assets allocation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Organizing asset allocation, i.e., mapping asset token to a physical asset based on rules is a business process. Utilizing computer to automate this business process does not improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field i.e. distributed ledger or blockchain.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computing system, off-chain microservice, decentralized computing environment, distributed ledger, processors, memory and computer readable medium steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant maintains that “claim 1 provides a similar type of specific technical process resulting in a technical improvement. Example 37 demonstrates eligibility for a specific sequence of steps that automatically displays icons to improve a user interface. Similarly, claim 1 recites a specific sequence of steps that results in an improvement to the technical operation of a distributed ledger system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As responded previously, example 37 is directed to arrange and display Icons on a GUI based on the amount of use of each icon automatically. Unlike example 37, the instant application is directed to organizing asset allocation, i.e., mapping asset token to a physical asset, which is a business process. Furthermore, in claim 1, distributed ledger is merely a destination where the transactions be sent to for processing. Distributed ledger itself does not actively perform any function in the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 does not demonstrate an improvement to the distributed ledger technology.
Additionally, the applicant argues that Claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim “results in the technical improvement ... enhancing the efficiency and scalability of the distributed ledger system, and reducing its computational load - a clear practical application and improvement to distributed ledger technology, not merely a business process.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Broadcasting transactions to a distributed ledger for processing does not demonstrate any improvement to the distributed ledger technology. In claim 1, the distributed ledger is merely a destination and does not actively perform any function. Accordingly, the argument of claim 1 improves the distributed ledger technology is moot.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4-7 and 24-26 are directed to a method, claims 8-9 and 11-14 are directed to an apparatus, and claims 15-16 and 18-20 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) organizing assets allocation. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, by a ..., a plurality of transactions in a ... involving digital tokens backed by physical assets, the plurality of transactions spanning a first time period; identifying, by the ..., a previous position of the ... by capturing a snapshot of token ownership and physical asset to digital token allocation during a period immediately preceding the first time period; identifying, by the..., inventory information corresponding to the physical assets backing the digital tokens; defragmenting, by an ..., an allocation of physical assets to digital tokens based, at least in part, on the plurality of transactions, the previous position of the ..., and the inventory information corresponding to the physical assets to minimize a number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens when compared to the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens prior to the defragmenting, wherein minimizing the number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens minimizes a computational load of the ... when compared to a computational load of the ... prior to the defragmenting; and following the defragmenting, broadcasting, by the ..., the plurality of transactions to a ... of the ....” which is “fundamental economic principles or practices” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” 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 organizing assets allocation. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This 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 element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of computing system, off-chain microservice, decentralized computing environment, distributed ledger, processors, memory and computer readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of organizing assets allocation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computing system, off-chain microservice, decentralized computing environment, distributed ledger, processors, memory and computer readable medium steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 describe distributed ledger data synchronization. Dependent claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 describe physical assets allocation. Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 describe distributed ledger data synchronization. Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 describe transactions. Dependent claims 7 and 14 describe defragmentation. Dependent claims 24-25 describe off-chain microservice. Dependent claim 26 describes retrieving inventory information. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of computing system, off-chain microservice, decentralized computing environment, distributed ledger, processors, memory and computer readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of organizing assets allocation. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a computing system, off-chain microservice, decentralized computing environment, distributed ledger, processors, memory and computer readable medium as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 and 24-26 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter
Regarding the amended claims 1, 8 and 15, following limitations are new matter as they are not supported by the Specification.
“defragmenting, by an off-chain microservice associated with the system, an allocation of physical assets to digital tokens based, at least in part, on the plurality of transactions, the previous position of the decentralized computing environment, and the inventory information corresponding to the physical assets to minimize a number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens when compared to the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens prior to the defragmenting, wherein minimizing the number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens minimizes a computational load of the system when compared to a computational load of the system prior to the defragmenting;” Specification PGPub ¶0051 discloses “optimization program 210 may re-allocate the fractional shares to a single gold bar. In this manner, optimization program 210 may defragment the assignment of physical assets to digital assets.” Furthermore ¶0062 discloses “optimization program 210 may optimize the allocation of physical assets to digital assets to minimize the number of physical assets utilized, minimize the number of accounts affected, minimize the number of times an account is affected, or the like. Such process may result in the defragmentation of physical assets.” However, the specification is silent on “defragmenting, by an off-chain microservice associated with the computing system, an allocation of physical assets to digital tokens.”
For the purposes of examination, these limitations are being interpreted as follows:
defragmenting, by an off-chain optimization program associated with the computing system, an allocation of physical assets to digital tokens based, at least in part, on the plurality of transactions, the previous position of the decentralized computing environment, and the inventory information corresponding to the physical assets to minimize a number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens when compared to the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens prior to the defragmenting, wherein minimizing the number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens minimizes a computational load of the computing system when compared to a computational load of the computing system prior to the defragmenting;”
Claims 2, 4-7, 24-26, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected as each depends from claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitations “identifying, by the computing system, inventory information corresponding to the physical assets backing the digital tokens;” and “defragmenting, by an off-chain microservice associated with the computing system, an allocation of physical assets to digital tokens based, at least in part, on the plurality of transactions,...” This renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art if the claims describe the same physical assets and same digital assets.
Claims 2, 4-7, 24-26, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected as each depends from claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 and 24-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of record is US20190012663A1 (“Masters”). Masters teaches creating and distributing asset-backed tokens (abs), recording the tokens on blockchain (¶0040), and determining funds allocation. However, the prior art does not teach receiving, by a computing system, a plurality of transactions in a decentralized computing environment involving digital tokens backed by physical assets, the plurality of transactions spanning a first time period; identifying, by the computing system, a previous position of the decentralized computing environment by capturing a snapshot of token ownership and physical asset to digital token allocation during a period immediately preceding the first time period; identifying, by the computing system, inventory information corresponding to the physical assets backing the digital tokens; defragmenting, by an off-chain microservice associated with the computing system, an allocation of physical assets to digital tokens based on the plurality of transactions, the previous position of the decentralized computing environment, and the inventory information corresponding to the physical assets to minimize a number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens when compared to the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens prior to the defragmenting, wherein minimizing the number of the physical assets that are allocated to the digital tokens minimizes a computational load of the computing system when compared to a computational load of the computing system prior to the defragmenting; and following the defragmenting, broadcasting, by the computing system, the plurality of transactions to a distributed ledger of the decentralized computing environment.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20200193516A9 (“de Jong et al.”) discloses a system and method for issuing, managing, and transferring asset-backed asset tokens. The system comprises a mint component and a commerce component. The commerce component provides an interface through which customers can purchase asset tokens. The commerce component interfaces with the mint component to control the issuance of the asset tokens in the name of the purchasing customers.
US11514411B2 (“Sinmao et al.”) discloses a platform implementing a two-tier tokenization process to build a digital asset pool at a server. An application builds the digital asset pool, initializes general asset tokens to represent pro-rata ownership interests in a general pool of assets, and uses general asset tokens to create specific asset tokens to represent ownership interests in specific assets from that pool that a user of the platform selects, from a remote device in communication with the server, from the general pool. General asset tokens offered to eligible retail and/or institutional investors generate funding to build the asset pool. Owners of general asset tokens are periodically offered, by the server, the option to select portions of specific assets from the general asset pool, and create through the two-tier tokenization process, shares of specific asset tokens, subject to the technical protocols, ownership concentration limits, and bidding and allocation schema established by the present platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights