DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to non-final Office action on 03/30/2026 amending claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 21. In light of Applicant's amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 rejection of claims 2-21. Examiner has, however, established new § 101 rejection for claims 2-21 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant rejection if FINAL rejection of claims 2-21.
Examiner's Remarks
§ 101 Rejection: Applicant argues in page 12 of Applicant's Remarks:
The specification describes a technical problem where cryptocurrency stored on online trading platforms is particularly vulnerable to theft and malicious computing attacks based on the nature of the technology, that possession and use may be anonymous and the holder of private keys can claim and use such cryptocurrency for transactions or other value exchanges. This is particularly apparent with the use of online digital wallets that store private keys in an online environment where hackers and other exploiters of computer security systems may gain access to such private keys, which is a specific problem with computer system and cryptocurrency technology. As described in paragraph [0003] of the specification, "cryptocurrency is vulnerable to theft and other malicious acts" and "several prominent cryptocurrency trading platforms have been compromised and cryptocurrency has been stolen from digital wallets." While users may look to offline storage processes with secure custodians that protect cryptocurrency from external threats, "these secure storage mediums cost significant amounts of time to use." See paragraph [0003] of the application. The present claims therefore provide a technical solution to this technical problem.
The amended claims recite specific technical features that address this problem. Amended claim 2, as representative, recites a daemon application that "continuously or intermittently operates without user input" and includes "one or more automated processes to trigger and perform a rebalancing of an online storage when balances associated with one or more crypto storages are above, at, or below one or more thresholds." The claim further recites specific technical implementations for monitoring, including "querying the online storage at intervals through the daemon application" and "receiving push information via a websocket corresponding to a stream of events." These are specific technical solutions that are not generic computer functions. Instead, amended claim 2 provides specific technical mechanisms for automated cryptocurrency security management in a faster and more efficient, secure, and coordinated manner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s Specification states:
[0002] The present application generally relates to securing digital assets and cryptocurrency from malicious computing attacks and fraud, and more particularly to an automated daemon operation that performs rebalancing of digital wallets holding cryptocurrency on different online platforms to reduce risk.
As before, instant claims 2-21 do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the claims are recited in high level of abstraction lacking details and specifics as to how the technological solution to a technological problem is carried out. Applicant’s Specification – see [0002] above – sets the problem to be solved as: “securing digital assets and cryptocurrency from malicious computing attacks and fraud.” It is not clear from Applicant’s recited claim limitations how this is accomplished via technological means. Applicant is merely using technology in solving a business problem of balancing the amount of cryptocurrency in cold and hot wallets instead of improving technology by solving technological problem and reciting the details and specifics of that solution. Therefore, claims 2-21 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant is invited to set up an interview with Examiner to discuss this matter further.
Prior Art Rejection: The closest cited prior art reference of record, Holland (US 2020/0027080 A1) teaches generally rebalancing an amount of cryptocurrency between an online storage and an offline storage based on risk. Holland, however, does not teach – alone or in combination with other references – the following claim limitations of independent claims 2, 10, and 17 as an ordered combination of steps with other claim limitations:
execute, by the monitoring process using the daemon application, balance checks of the balances, wherein executing the balance checks includes: querying the online storage at intervals through the daemon application, and receiving push information via a websocket corresponding to a stream of events and a plurality of first application programming interface (API) calls to a wallet application associated with the online storage for the data;
detect, by the daemon application, an occurrence of an event based on the plurality of first API calls and the balances, wherein the event triggers the rebalancing of the online storage with an offline storage, wherein the rebalancing moves a second amount of cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage, and wherein the rebalancing minimizes a threshold percentage of a total amount of cryptocurrency from being exposed to the digital cryptocurrency trading platform via the online storage associated with the system;
trigger, by the daemon application using at least one second API call, the rebalancing of the online storage with the offline storage;
identify, by the daemon application, an offline storage system corresponding to the offline storage that comprises security hardware on a private network secured from external sources, wherein the offline storage system includes a security engine comprising the security hardware and software configured to secure cryptocurrency in a secure vault, wherein the offline storage is inaccessible to the external sources except for at least an authorized device associated with the daemon application, and wherein the security engine requires an authorization from one or more administrators prior to transferring cryptocurrency from the offline storage;
execute, by the daemon application, a third API call to the offline storage system corresponding to the offline storage, wherein the third API call requests that the offline storage system access a third amount of cryptocurrency stored by the offline storage in a secure offline environment for the rebalancing; and
execute, by the daemon application, one or more fourth API calls that move the second amount of cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage using at least the offline storage system, wherein the daemon application executes the rebalancing to a target of the balances without user input.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 2-9 is a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 10-16 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, also one of the statutory categories of invention. Still further, the claimed invention of claims 17-21 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 2-21 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 2-21, however, recite an abstract idea of rebalancing an amount of cryptocurrency between an online storage and an offline storage based on risk. The creation of rebalancing an amount of cryptocurrency between an online storage and an offline storage based on risk, as recited in the independent claims 2, 10, and 17, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles of practices including mitigating risk) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 2, 10, and 17, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“monitor whether the balances associated with the one or more crypto storages are above, at, or below a threshold from the one or more thresholds, using a monitoring process that requests reading data from the online storage associated with the system, wherein the data includes a first amount of cryptocurrency stored by the online storage, and wherein the first amount of cryptocurrency is accessible through a digital cryptocurrency trading platform associated with the system” (claim 2);
“execute, by the monitoring process, balance checks of the balances, wherein executing the balance checks includes: querying the online storage at intervals through the daemon application, and receiving push information via a websocket corresponding to a stream of events and a plurality of first application programming interface (API) calls to a wallet application associated with the online storage for the data” (claim 2);
“detect an occurrence of an event based on the plurality of first API calls and the balances, wherein the event triggers the rebalancing of the online storage with an offline storage, wherein the rebalancing moves a second amount of cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage, and wherein the rebalancing minimizes a threshold percentage of a total amount of cryptocurrency from being exposed to the digital cryptocurrency trading platform via the online storage associated with the system” (claim 2);
“determine, based on detecting the occurrence of the event, that the rebalancing of the online storage with the offline storage is required” (claim 2);
“trigger, using at least one second API call, the rebalancing of the online storage with the offline storage” (claim 2);
“determine, based on the second API call and the rebalancing, the second amount of cryptocurrency to move between the online storage and the offline storage” (claim 2);
“identify an offline storage system corresponding to the offline storage that comprises security hardware on a private network secured from external sources, wherein the offline storage system includes a security engine comprising the security hardware and software configured to secure cryptocurrency in a secure vault, wherein the offline storage is inaccessible to the external sources except for at least an authorized device associated with the daemon application, and wherein the security engine requires an authorization from one or more administrators prior to transferring cryptocurrency from the offline storage” (claim 2);
“execute a third API call to the offline storage system corresponding to the offline storage, wherein the third API call requests that the offline storage system access a third amount of cryptocurrency stored by the offline storage in a secure offline environment for the rebalancing” (claim 2);
“execute one or more fourth API calls that move the second amount of cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage, wherein the daemon application executes the rebalancing to a target of the balances without user input” (claim 2);
“monitoring whether the balances associated with one or more crypto storages are above, at, or below a threshold of the one or more thresholds using a monitoring process that reads data from the online storage corresponding to a digital cryptocurrency trading platform, wherein the data is associated with real-time balance information for a first amount of cryptocurrency stored by the online storage” (claim 10);
“executing, by the monitoring process, balance checks of the balances, wherein executing the balance checks includes: querying the online storage through the daemon application, and receiving push information via a websocket corresponding to a stream of events and a plurality of first application programming interface (API) calls to a wallet application associated with the online storage for the data” (claim 10);
“detecting an occurrence of an event based on the plurality of first API calls and the balances, wherein the event triggers the rebalancing of the online storage with an offline storage, wherein the rebalancing moves a second amount of cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage, and wherein the rebalancing minimizes a threshold percentage of a total amount of cryptocurrency from being exposed to the digital cryptocurrency trading platform via the online storage” (claim 10);
“determining, based on detecting the occurrence of the event, that the rebalance of the online storage is required to maintain the first amount of cryptocurrency at or below a threshold amount based on a risk parameter” (claim 10);
“triggering, using a second API call, the rebalancing of the online storage with the offline storage” (claim 10);
“determining, based on the second API call and the risk parameter, a second amount of cryptocurrency that rebalances the cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage” (claim 10);
“identifying an offline storage system corresponding to the offline storage that comprises security hardware on a private network secured from external sources, wherein the offline storage system includes a security engine comprising the security hardware and software configured to secure cryptocurrency in a secure vault, wherein the offline storage is inaccessible to the external sources except for at least an authorized device associated with the daemon application, and wherein the security engine requires an authorization from one or more administrators prior to transferring cryptocurrency from the offline storage” (claim 10);
“executing a third API call to the offline storage, wherein the third API call requests that the offline storage system access the offline storage in an offline environment” (claim 10);
“executing one or more fourth API calls that exchange the second amount of cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage using at least the offline storage system, wherein the daemon application executes the rebalancing to a target of the balances without user input” (claim 10);
“monitor[ing] whether the balances associated with one or more crypto storages are above, at, or below a threshold from the one or more thresholds based on real-time data from a cryptocurrency trading platform using a monitoring process that determines whether an amount of cryptocurrency in the online storage corresponding to the cryptocurrency has met or exceeded a threshold limit corresponding to a risk parameter” (claim 17);
“executing, by the monitoring process, balance checks of the balances, wherein executing the balance checks includes: querying the online storage through the daemon application, and receiving push information via a websocket corresponding to a stream of events and a plurality of first application programming interface (API) calls to a wallet application associated with the online storage for the data” (claim 17);
“detecting an occurrence of an event based on the plurality of first API calls and the balances, wherein the event triggers the rebalancing of the online storage with an offline storage, wherein the rebalancing moves a second amount of cryptocurrency between the online storage and the offline storage, and wherein the rebalancing minimizes a threshold percentage of a total amount of cryptocurrency from being exposed to the digital cryptocurrency trading platform via the online storage” (claim 17);
“determining, based on detecting the occurrence of the event, that the rebalancing of the online storage with the offline storage is required” (claim 17);
“triggering, using a second API call, the rebalancing of the online storage with the offline storage” (claim 17);
“executing the second API call to the online storage, wherein the second API call requests that a portion of the amount of cryptocurrency to perform for the daemon application to perform a rebalancing of the online storage with the offline storage inaccessible via the cryptocurrency trading platform” (claim 17);
“identifying an offline storage system corresponding to the offline storage that comprises security hardware on a private network secured from external sources, wherein the offline storage system includes a security engine comprising the security hardware and software configured to secure cryptocurrency in a secure vault, wherein the offline storage is inaccessible to the external sources except for at least an authorized device associated with the daemon application, and wherein the security engine requires an authorization from one or more administrators prior to transferring cryptocurrency from the offline storage” (claim 17); and
“executing a third API call to an offline storage system corresponding to the offline storage, wherein the third API call requests access the offline storage and perform the rebalancing by storing the portion of the amount of cryptocurrency in the offline storage” (claim 17).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 2, 10, and 17, recite additional elements:
“a non-transitory memory” (claim 2);
“one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions” (claim 2);
“a daemon application that is implemented in a background and continuously or intermittently operates without user input, wherein the daemon application includes one or more automated processes to trigger and perform a rebalancing of an online storage when balances associated with one or more crypto storages are above, at, or below one or more thresholds” (claims 2, 10, and 17); and
“a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable by a machine to cause a machine to perform operations” (claim 17).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and software. Also, the following additional limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“obtaining the portion of the amount of cryptocurrency” (claim 17); and
“transferring the portion of the amount of cryptocurrency to the offline storage system, wherein the daemon application executes the rebalancing to a target of the balances without user input” (claim 17).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 2, 10, and 17, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations).
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: The limitations in independent claims 2, 10, and 17, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea are not patent eligible either alone or in combination. The additional elements/limitations in independent claims 2, 10, and 17, are not patent eligible either alone or in combination. Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations and the limitations which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/limitations and the limitations which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claims 2, 10, and 17, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 2, 10, and 17, (see above under Step 2A – Prong 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The Applicant’s Specification describes these additional elements in following terms:
[00036] Service provider server 140 of FIG. 1 includes a cryptocurrency wallet application 150, a transaction processing application 142, a database 144, and a network interface component 146. Cryptocurrency wallet application 150 and transaction processing application 142 may correspond to executable processes, procedures, and/or applications with associated hardware. []
[00061] FIG. 5 is a block diagram of a computer system suitable for implementing one or more components in FIG. 1, according to an embodiment. In various embodiments, the communication device may comprise a personal computing device e.g., smart phone, a computing tablet, a personal computer, laptop, a wearable computing device such as glasses or a watch, Bluetooth device, key FOB, badge, etc.) capable of communicating with the network. The service provider may utilize a network computing device (e.g., a network server) capable of communicating with the network. It should be appreciated that each of the devices utilized by users and service providers may be implemented as computer system 500 in a manner as follows.
[00062] Computer system 500 includes a bus 502 or other communication mechanism for communicating information data, signals, and information between various components of computer system 500. Components include an input/output (I/O) component 504 that processes a user action, such as selecting keys from a keypad/keyboard, selecting one or more buttons, image, or links, and/or moving one or more images, etc., and sends a corresponding signal to bus 502. I/O component 504 may also include an output component, such as a display 511 and a cursor control 513 (such as a keyboard, keypad, mouse, etc.) . . . A transceiver or network interface 506 transmits and receives signals between computer system 500 and other devices, such as another communication device, service device, or a service provider server via network 160. In one embodiment, the transmission is wireless, although other transmission mediums and methods may also be suitable. One or more processors . . . 512 may also control transmission of information, such as cookies or IP addresses, to other devices.
[00063] Components of computer system 500 also include a system memory component 514 (e.g., RAM), a static storage component 516 (e.g., ROM), and/or a disk drive 517. Computer system 500 performs specific operations by processor(s) 512 and other components by executing one or more sequences of instructions contained in system memory component 514. Logic may be encoded in a computer readable medium, which may refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor(s) 512 for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. In various embodiments, non-volatile media includes optical or magnetic disks, volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as system memory component 514, and transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including wires that comprise bus 502. In one embodiment, the logic is encoded in non-transitory computer readable medium.
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Further, the additional limitations of "obtaining" and "transferring" information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason, these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of "obtaining" and "transferring" information were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional elements of independent claim 17 "obtains" and "transfers" information over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized "obtaining" and "transferring" information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claim 17 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 2, 10, and 17, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 3-9 depend on independent claim 2; dependent claims 11-16 depend on independent claim 10; and dependent claims 18-21 depend on independent claim 17. The elements in dependent claims 3-9, 11-16, and 18-21, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the online storage comprises an online digital wallet for the first amount of cryptocurrency with the digital cryptocurrency trading platform for a cryptocurrency liquidity service separate from the system” (claim 3: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the offline storage comprises an offline cold digital wallet, wherein the offline storage system comprises a secure digital asset custodian in the private network secured from the digital cryptocurrency trading platform, and wherein the secure digital asset custodian requires a consent for an outgoing transfer associated with the third amount of cryptocurrency” (claim 4: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the consent comprises a group authorization from a plurality of administrators of an entity corresponding to at least one of the system or the secure digital asset custodian” (claim 5: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“prior to executing the plurality of first API calls, executing the instructions further causes the system to: determine a variable price of cryptocurrency corresponding to each of the first, second, and third amounts of cryptocurrency based on trading data corresponding to the digital cryptocurrency trading platform; and determine a balance value of the first amount of cryptocurrency stored by the online storage based on the variable price, wherein the risk parameter is associated with the balance value, and wherein the data provided to the daemon application includes the balance value of the first amount of cryptocurrency” (claim 6: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the rebalancing comprises one of a first transfer of the second amount of cryptocurrency from the online storage to the offline storage or a second transfer of the second amount of cryptocurrency from the offline storage to the online storage, wherein the first transfer occurs for the rebalancing when the first amount of cryptocurrency is at or above the threshold percentage of the total amount of cryptocurrency, and wherein the second transfer occurs for the rebalancing when the first amount of cryptocurrency is at or below the threshold percentage of the total amount of cryptocurrency” (claim 7: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the daemon application is executed by the system, and wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to: perform a plurality of rebalancing operations with the online storage and the offline storage over a time period using the daemon application, wherein the plurality of rebalancing operations maintains the first amount of cryptocurrency stored by the online storage at or below the threshold percentage” (claim 8: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the plurality of rebalancing operations are performed based on at least one of periodic time intervals for rebalancing the online storage or a rebalancing trigger associated with a maximum cryptocurrency balance in the online storage” (claim 9: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the online storage comprises an online digital wallet for the first amount of cryptocurrency with the digital cryptocurrency trading platform for a cryptocurrency liquidity service” (claim 11: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the offline storage comprises an offline cold digital wallet, wherein the offline storage system comprises a secure digital asset custodian in the private network secured from the digital cryptocurrency trading platform, and the secure digital asset custodian requires a consent for an outgoing transfer associated with the offline cold digital wallet” (claim 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the consent comprises a group authorization from a plurality of administrators of an entity corresponding to the secure digital asset custodian” (claim 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“prior to the executing the plurality of first API calls, the method further comprises: determining a value of the first amount of cryptocurrency stored by the online storage, wherein the data provided to the daemon application includes the value of the value” (claim 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the executing the one or more fourth API calls is associated with requesting that the second amount of cryptocurrency be transferred from the online storage to the offline storage via the offline storage system” (claim 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the executing the one or more fourth API calls is associated with requesting that the second amount of cryptocurrency be transferred from the offline storage to the online storage by the offline storage system without accessing the offline storage in a networked environment with the online storage” (claim 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the online storage comprises an online digital wallet for the amount of cryptocurrency with the cryptocurrency trading platform for a cryptocurrency liquidity service” (claim 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the offline storage comprises an offline cold digital wallet, wherein the offline storage system comprises a secure digital asset custodian in the private network secured from the cryptocurrency trading platform, and wherein the secure digital asset custodian requires a consent for an outgoing transfer associated with the offline cold digital wallet” (claim 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“consent comprises a group authorization from a plurality of administrators of an entity corresponding to the secure digital asset custodian” (claim 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“to the executing the plurality of first API calls, the operations further comprise: determining a value of the amount of cryptocurrency stored by the online storage, wherein the data provided to the daemon application includes the value of the value" (claim 21: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 3-9, 11-16, and 18-21, do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 2, 10, and 17, and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 2-21 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Au, A., et al. "Care, custody, & control (CCC): Identification, quantification, and mitigation of cryptocurrency custodial risk." Cryptocurrency and Cyber Risk: Market Analysis and Perspectives (2020).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights