DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on January 23, 2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim interpretation, Applicant provides comments regarding the alleged claim interpretation. Remarks at 9-10. Although the claim interpretation has been maintained except for the amended limitation, Applicant’s remarks are part of the record.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that “the subject matter of the instant application, as embodied in the claims addresses technical challenges in cryptocurrency networks and provides technical improvements thereto.” Remark at 13. Applicant points to paragraphs 0023-0025 of the Specification in which transaction/gas fees are discussed. Id. at 13-14. Applicant further asserts that the claims provide “multiple technical improvements in cryptocurrency networks” and quotes paragraph 0205 of the Specification. Id. at 15. However, Applicant has not shown that the claims provide an improvement to the technology. Instead, Applicant is using existing technology to allegedly improvement a business process, i.e., an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that “[l]ike the claims at issue in Enfish and Del Bene [(nonprecedential and noninformative)], the instant claims improve the functioning of computing devices (i.e., reduces a number of transaction required, thereby reducing computing resources consumed) and improves an existing technological process (i.e., execution of cryptocurrency transactions in cryptocurrency networks).” Remarks at 16. However, Applicant is describing a business problem and a business solution. Although a programmed general purpose computing device is used as a tool to solve this business problem, the solution does not involve an improvement to the technology.
Applicant further cites to Desjardins as allegedly providing precedent for eligibility of the instant claims. Remarks at 16-17. However, the facts from Desjardins are different from the instant claims and the guidance in the MPEP has not changed.
Applicant further refers to Bascom and Enfish to assert that the instant claims provide a technical improvement. Remarks at 17-18. However, Applicant has not shown that the instant claims provide an improvement similar to the ones found by Federal Circuit.
As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and remarks. Although individual claim features are found in the art, the claim as a whole is not obvious over the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c). Claims 1-9 are representative.
Intended Use
Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
The following limitations include intended use limitations:
Claim 1: receiving, by the paymaster, an amount of non-native cryptocurrency from a user to account for a transaction fee for execution of a transaction within the chain network
Claim 3: storing a hash table that records a set of parameters used to calculate a returned amount of native cryptocurrency and a returned amount of non-native cryptocurrency for participation of each liquidity provider in the liquidity source
Claim 5: storing a linked list of liquidity providers in the chain network, the linked list of liquidity providers being used to determine the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency to one or more liquidity providers in the set of liquidity providers
Claim 6: using a set of pointers to define an active window of the linked list, the active window defining the one or more liquidity providers for transfer of the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency
Claim 7: wherein the linked list is provided as a first-in, first-out (FIFO) queue to determine the one or more liquidity providers for transfer of the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Nonfunctional descriptive material is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. Any difference related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the type of the item) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
The following limitations include nonfunctional descriptive material:
Claim 4: wherein the set of parameters comprises, for each log state of a plurality of log states, a set of exchange rates for the native cryptocurrency and a set of exchange rates for the non-native cryptocurrency relative to a funds distribution token (FDT) (The content of the stored data is nonfunctional descriptive material)
Claim 5: storing a linked list of liquidity providers in the chain network, the linked list of liquidity providers being used to determine the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency to one or more liquidity providers in the set of liquidity providers
Not Positively Recited
The following limitations are not positively recited and, therefore, do not differentiate the claims from the prior art:
Claim 1: providing, within the chain network, a liquidity source comprising a set of liquidity providers that provide a pool of native cryptocurrency (This limitation does not positively recite that the set of liquidity provides provide a pool of native cryptocurrency.)
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-9, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 10-16 which recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 17-20, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-9 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A computer-implemented method for execution of transactions within a chain network, comprising:
providing, within the chain network, a liquidity source comprising a set of liquidity providers that provide a pool of native cryptocurrency;
receiving, by a paymaster executed in the chain network, an amount of native cryptocurrency from the pool of native cryptocurrency, the paymaster comprising a permissionless paymaster that any smart contract account (SCA) on the chain network can use for transactions without first requesting and receiving permission to use the paymaster;
receiving, by the paymaster, an amount of non-native cryptocurrency from a user to account for a transaction fee for execution of a transaction within the chain network, the transaction being executed within the chain network; and
after execution of the transaction:
accounting for the transaction fee using at least a portion of the amount of native cryptocurrency,
determining, by the paymaster, a total cost of the transaction in the non-native cryptocurrency at least partially based on a spread, and
transferring, by the paymaster, respective amounts of non-native cryptocurrency to one or more liquidity providers in the set of liquidity providers based on the spread.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency transferred to the one or more liquidity providers are determined using a funds distribution standard (FDS) that is based on ratios of native cryptocurrency deposited by respective liquidity providers relative to an overall amount of native cryptocurrency in the liquidity source.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising storing a hash table that records a set of parameters used to calculate a returned amount of native cryptocurrency and a returned amount of non-native cryptocurrency for participation of each liquidity provider in the liquidity source.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the set of parameters comprises, for each log state of a plurality of log states, a set of exchange rates for the native cryptocurrency and a set of exchange rates for the non-native cryptocurrency relative to a funds distribution token (FDT).
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising storing a linked list of liquidity providers in the chain network, the linked list of liquidity providers being used to determine the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency to one or more liquidity providers in the set of liquidity providers.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising using a set of pointers to define an active window of the linked list, the active window defining the one or more liquidity providers for transfer of the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the linked list is provided as a first-in, first-out (FIFO) queue to determine the one or more liquidity providers for transfer of the amounts of non-native cryptocurrency.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a value of the spread changes over time.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the paymaster is provided and deployed to the chain network by an enterprise that provides the non-native cryptocurrency.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to executing transactions. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it includes payments and a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a chain network environment. Employing well known technology within a chain network environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Gonsalves et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0095721 A1. This reference teaches automated interaction with blockchain applications. Specifically, paragraph 0040 teaches “In some embodiments, at act 502, the facility links a “paymaster” contract to the smart contract and the gas station network. A paymaster contract is a smart contract that holds funds used to pay gas fees on a blockchain. In such embodiments, the smart contract is altered such that a relayer associated with the gas station network deducts gas fees from the paymaster contract instead of from a user's cryptocurrency wallet.”
Viggiano, Antonio. “A Deep Dive into the Main Components of ERC-4337: Account Abstraction Using Alt Mempool – Part 4,” https://medium.com/oak-security/a-deep-dive-into-the-main-components-of-erc-4337-account-abstraction-using-alt-mempool-part-4-ab7dacbf64d4 (March 19, 2024). This reference discusses paymasters.
Nguyen, U.S. Patent Number 11,244,032 B1. This reference discusses permissionless blockchains. See column 1, lines 39-46 and column 8, lines 58-60.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
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 ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM 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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)
Prosecution Insights