DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-23 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-23 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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 are amended.
Claims 21-23 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 as the Examiner asserts in the Office Action.... Rather, the claim is directed to a specific, technical process for optimizing the allocation of physical assets to digital tokens in a 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 the ..., 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; 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.
The applicant argues that “Claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.” because “Claim 1 requires that, after defragmentation, the transactions are broadcast to a distributed ledger. This step is not a generic computer implementation, but a specific technical process that ensures the optimized allocation is reflected in a decentralized environment.” 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, 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.
Tokenizing physical assets is a way to create a digital representation of the physical assets on a distributed ledger or blockchain. Therefore, sending the transaction to the distributed ledger or blockchain network for recording is a required step of tokenizing physical assets. Utilizing a computer to send the transaction to the distributed ledger for recording 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 applicant further argues that “claim 1 provides a technical solution to a technical problem and amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.” because “fragmentation results in sub-optimal usage of the physical assets backing the digital tokens. Claim 1 recites the solution to this problem by defragmenting the allocation based on real-time transaction data, previous system state, and inventory information. ... the defragmentation minimizes the number of physical assets that are allocated which improves the efficiency of the system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tokenizing physical assets such as creating digital tokens that represent shares of the physical assets is a business transaction. Therefore, defragmenting or fragmenting tokens are based on business needs. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any defragmenting (or fragmenting) can only work when it is based on the correct map. A correct token map must be based on real time data.
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, 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.
Additionally, the applicant argues “that the claim 1 is analogous to Example 39 in the Subject Matter Eligibility guidelines.” because “claim 1 improves the functioning of a decentralized computing environment by reducing, or limiting, fragmentation thereby optimizing resource allocation.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
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.
Applicant also auges that “claim 1 is similar to Example 37 in the Subject Matter Eligibility guidelines.” because “Claim 1 similarly recites a specific sequence of steps for optimizing the allocation of physical assets to digital tokens. These include, but are not limited to, receiving transaction data, capturing a snapshot of the system state, identifying inventory information, performing defragmentation, and broadcasting transactions to a distributed ledger — a practical application.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
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. 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, 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.
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 and 18-23 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 20-21 are directed to a method, claims 8-9, 11-14 and 23 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 the ..., 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; 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, 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, 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 21 and 23 describe microservice. Dependent claim 22 describes tokenizing physical assets. 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, 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, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 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; 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.
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 extension fee 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 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights