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 Claims
This is first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 07/08/2024.
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for benefit of a US Provisional Application No. 63/525,695 filed on 07/09/2023 is acknowledged. Applicant's claim for the benefit of US Provisional Application Nos. 63/604,255 filed on 11/30/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 27 is directed to a computer program product, and claim 28 is directed to a system (a process, an article of manufacture, and an apparatus).
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claims 1, 27, and 28 recite: creating a private, provable ordered transaction history of a tokenized asset, wherein the provable ordered transaction history is based on a plurality of on-chain transactions from one or more blockchains; developing a decision strategy, wherein the decision strategy is based on the provable ordered transaction history, wherein the decision strategy comprises a program that activates one or more action instructions for a smart contract; deploying the decision strategy on a private centralized oracle, wherein the decision strategy initiates the smart contract on the one or more blockchains; sending the one or more action instructions, by the decision strategy that was deployed, to the smart contract, wherein the one or more action instructions are responsive to one or more on-chain transactions; and executing the one or more action instructions, by the smart contract, wherein the executing results in at least one new blockchain transaction.
Claims 1, 27, and 28 as drafted include language (see underlined language above) that recite an abstract idea of analyzing past performances of transactions (i.e., trades) to develop a decision strategy for performing transactions (i.e., trades), which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles, specifically mitigating risk).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) “private, centralized oracle,” “smart contract,” “blockchain,” “computer program product,” and “a computer system,” generally “apply” the concept of analyzing past performances of transactions (i.e., trades) to develop a decision strategy for performing transactions (i.e., trades). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using private, centralized oracle, smart contract, blockchain, computer program product, and a computer system amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea of analyzing past performances of transactions (i.e., trades) to develop a decision strategy for performing transactions (i.e., trades). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitation “deploying the decision strategy on a private centralized oracle, wherein the decision strategy initiates the smart contract on the one or more blockchains” adds extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and is not enough to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 2 which claim “wherein the creating includes collecting, from the one or more blockchains, transaction data associated with the plurality of on-chain transactions, wherein the collecting is based on a private blockchain data indexer” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 3 which claims “transforming the transaction data, wherein the transforming produces the provable ordered transaction history” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 4 which claims “wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes a start block and an end block” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 5 which claims “wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes one or more timestamps” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 6 which claims “wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes a combined hash, wherein the combined hash is based on one or more blocks from the one or more blockchains which contain the plurality of on-chain transactions” which merely includes instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components (i.e., hash). When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 7 which claims “storing the provable ordered transaction history, wherein the storing is accomplished off chain” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 8 which claims “backtesting the decision strategy, wherein the backtesting is based on the provable ordered transaction history” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 9 which claims “optimizing the one or more decision strategies, wherein the optimizing is based on the backtesting” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 10 which claims “verifying that the at least one new blockchain transaction was executed according to the decision strategy” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 11 which claims “wherein the plurality of on-chain transactions includes off-chain information that was stored on-chain by one or more oracles” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 12 which claims “wherein the plurality of on-chain transactions comprises a live data feed of the one or more blockchains” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 13 which claims “wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes an open-high-low-close (OHLC) candle format, wherein the OHLC candle format includes volume” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 14 which claims “wherein the tokenized asset is a cryptocurrency” which merely includes instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components (i.e., cryptocurrency). When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 15 which claims “wherein the decision strategy includes one or more protection parameters” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 16 which claims “wherein the executing includes validating, by the smart contract, the one or more action instructions, wherein the validating is based on the one or more protection parameters” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 17-21 which claims “wherein the one or more protection parameters include a list of allowed exchanges, allowed trading pairs, maximum position size, risk score, quality of trade price information” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 22 which claims “wherein the developing, the deploying, and the sending include one or more additional decision strategies” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 23 which claims “wherein the one or more blockchains include a proprietary blockchain” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 24 which claims “wherein transactions on the proprietary blockchain are not permissionless” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 25 which claims “wherein the decision strategy is immutable” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 26 which claims “wherein the executing the at least one new blockchain transaction occurs in a trustless fashion” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 20, 22, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morais (US 20230136805) in view of Schneider (US 20210334866).
Regarding Claims 1, 27, and 28, Morais teaches creating a provable ordered transaction history of a tokenized asset, wherein the provable ordered transaction history is based on a plurality of on-chain transactions from one or more blockchains (Paragraph 0046 teaches a transaction processor includes a database; the database may store various identifiers associated with computing device along with store account data, transaction processing histories and data for processed transactions; account data stored by database may include data for accounts used to generate smart contracts for currency exchange transactions; the database may further be used to store data for blockchain and for use in monitoring and/or executing smart contract records; this may include identifiers and/or other data for monitoring smart contract records and/or information associated with currency exchange rates); developing a decision strategy, wherein the decision strategy is based on the provable ordered transaction history, wherein the decision strategy comprises a program that activates one or more action instructions for a smart contract (Paragraphs 0043-0044, 0050-0052, and 0068 teach smart contract operations may generate one or more smart contracts; the smart contract may be established by smart contract operations for a currency exchange transaction, which may have one or more trigger conditions; the trigger conditions may correspond to a requested exchange rate, amount, or conversion percentage, as well as an amount of time until either the smart contract is automatically executed, or the funds are returned to the remittance party, the buyer, or the seller; the trigger condition may also include patterns or trends in currency exchange rates, such as changes in moving averages, previous time period rate changes, and the like. Additionally, multiple trigger conditions, such as different exchange rates, patterns or trends in exchange rates and changes, and/or amounts of time for wait times may be set for a single smart contract for an amount of funds to exchange portions of the amount of funds, or instead multiple smart contracts may be established for the portions of the amount of funds and the different exchange rates, trends, and/or amounts of times; the smart contract operations may the broadcast and/or record the smart contract(s) to blockchain via distributed network participants; a sender may desire to send an amount of funds, such as for a transfer, payment, transaction, or the like to a receiver in another country and/or where the sender and receiver may utilize or want different currencies; the smart contract parameters include a trigger value for an exchange rate of 0.87 for exchanging or converting first currency to second currency; this trigger value allows for dynamic execution of the smart contract on detection of the trigger value being met; the trigger value may also correspond to a value of a particular currency, such as a cryptocurrency that may be purchased using funds in first currency; the trigger value may also come with additional trigger conditions; for example, the trigger conditions may include patterns or trends in moving averages, percentage changes over a previous time periods, and the like, which may be used to determine when to dynamically execute a smart contract; the smart contracted is generated for the exchange request at a trigger condition of an exchange rate over a time period. The trigger condition may correspond to the rate, value, or the like of the exchange rate necessary to be met or exceeded for conversion of funds between two currencies or more (e.g., from USD to Euros and Pound sterling); however, more complex trigger conditions may also or instead be established, such as patterns, changes, trends, and/or percentage movements in the value of the exchange rate over time and/or as compared to another time period, exchange rate, or other value); deploying the decision strategy on a private centralized oracle, wherein the decision strategy initiates the smart contract on the one or more blockchains (Paragraphs 0044-0045, 0055, and 0070-0071 teach once recorded, blockchain oracle operations may be used to exchange data and monitor a conversion rate with live exchange operations, such as those exchange rates that may be available with a live currency exchange; blockchain oracle operation may monitor exchange rates with different types of currency exchange systems; for example, when exchanging USD to cryptocurrency, or vice versa, the smart contracts may monitor the value of the cryptocurrency in USD or other fiat currency and may execute a purchase or sale transaction of the cryptocurrency; additional triggers may also void a contract, which may be set by the user requesting the currency exchange and/or determined by transaction processor; once transfer service generates smart contract; in order to dynamically execute smart contract, a blockchain oracle may be used for determining parameters for smart contract, including the trigger condition(s) and/or wait time, and monitor for these conditions using a live exchange center; the smart contract is broadcast for distributed nodes of a blockchain for recording in a blockchain record; the exchange rate is monitored, over the time period, for the trigger condition; monitoring of the exchange rate may work in conjunction with the blockchain and smart contracts recorded in the blockchain; the blockchain oracle may be used as blockchains may not have functionality to push or pull data from external resources as they function as an isolated network of the distributed computing nodes; the blockchain oracle may correspond to a system that may operate on and off-chain simultaneously in order to facilitate communications between the blockchain and the external live exchange system); sending the one or more action instructions, by the decision strategy that was deployed, to the smart contract, wherein the one or more action instructions are responsive to one or more on-chain transactions (Paragraphs 0054 and 0072 teach a smart contract rule is provided with smart contract parameter to a transfer service in order for generation of a smart contract; transfer server may correspond to a computing service, platform, and/or application/website of a service provider or transaction processor, such as transaction processor; transfer service generates smart contract having the trigger value of 0.87 and establishes alert operations to notify transfer service if a trigger condition is met, exceeded, or otherwise satisfied; it is determined if the trigger condition is met based on the monitored exchange rate; this determination may be based on the exchange rate meeting or exceeding a certain value, percentage conversion, or other rate; additional trigger conditions may also depend on trends, changes, or patterns in exchange rates, as well as a remaining amount of time until expiration of the established time period); and executing the one or more action instructions, by the smart contract, wherein the executing results in at least one new blockchain transaction (Paragraphs 0045, 0052, and 0072-0073 teach if a trigger condition is met, a currency exchange transaction may be processed to execute the corresponding smart contract; the smart contract may instead be automatically executed at the expiration of the wait time and the funds may be paid in second currency to receiver, or instead the funds in first currency may be provided to receiver; if it is determined that the trigger condition is met, the smart contract is executed to convert the amount of funds from the first currency to the second currency; executing the smart contract may correspond to processing a currency exchange transaction that converts the amount of funds from the first currency to the second currency and releasing the amount of funds in that second currency to the recipient of the funds; after the smart contract is executed, the smart contract may be marked as executed, voided, and/or otherwise completed so that the corresponding blockchain is updated with a record for the execution of the smart contract; however, if the trigger condition is not met, then it is determined whether to void the smart contract and return the amount to the user or automatically execute the smart contract at the exchange rate on the last day of the waiting time (e.g., for the smart contract)).
However, the Morais does not explicitly teach creating a private, provable ordered transaction history of a tokenized asset, wherein the provable ordered transaction history is based on a plurality of on-chain transactions from one or more blockchains.
Schneider from same or similar field of endeavors teaches creating a private, provable ordered transaction history of a tokenized asset, wherein the provable ordered transaction history is based on a plurality of on-chain transactions from one or more blockchains (Paragraphs 0060 and 0158-0159 teach the charting engine can be integrated into software, electronic applications, programs, interfaces, and other functional tools that can be applied to charting. Such products can be downloadable, web-based, mobile phone-based, or via a mobile application as well as server based, cloud based, or in a virtual environment; such charting products can be accessed via a sole charting subscription or can be integrated in conjunction with an online brokerage account to trade, simulate, and back-test the trade of assets; the methods can be employed from points of view of a publisher/provider and a subscriber/user; for instance, the data provider device of a publisher can receive a request to download an enhanced candlestick chart data feed and send a flash object that includes the enhanced candlestick chart to the network access device of a user/subscriber that can be opened and displayed in a browser or embedded into an electronic document; further, the network access device can store in a memory, an enhanced candlestick price chart display applet that makes API calls to receive real-time streaming enhanced OHLC data and/or enhanced candlestick chart publishing data from the charting engine of the data provider device; further, API connections can integrate a real-time streaming enhanced candlestick chart or a OHLC price bar chart module directly with brokerage trading software including trading portfolios, order management systems, and accounting systems; a cloud server can serve as a publisher platform for a Charting as a Service (CaaS) for subscribers to gain access to such new enhanced price charts that can further be integrated into interfaces of trading software and systems for market participants).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Morais to incorporate the teachings of Schneider to create a private, provable ordered transaction history of a tokenized asset, wherein the provable ordered transaction history is based on a plurality of on-chain transactions from one or more blockchains.
There is motivation to combine Schneider into Morais because the present disclosure enables enhanced OHLC data to assist a user with research, analysis, and back-testing with historical data to visualize enhanced candlestick chart data over longer time periods of years or even decades. The present disclosure provides enhanced OHLC and HLC bar charts that include a separate upper price bar and lower price bar instead of a conventional centerline high-low price bar and further include an open-close bar and a close bar, respectively, that can widen proportional to the percentage of traversal of the time period (Schneider Paragraph 0011). The present disclosure enables for the calculating and updating of the highest symbol position value, the lowest symbol position value, and the symbol partial-width value as prices fluctuate during the course of a time period as well as the storing of such data values into an enhanced OHLC data structure. The present disclosure enables ghost price range symbols to be generated and displayed (dimmed to distinguish from actual symbols) to provide more price chart continuity estimating last price in the event of illiquid stocks or options pricing that have infrequent last price data updates. The present disclosure enables a user to receive news, advertisements, estimated pricing and other context sensitive content displayed in the empty time gaps during closed markets whether overnight, the weekend or holidays and further display such enhanced content in between price gaps independent of time gaps. The present disclosure enables a variable symbol width between a minimum and maximum width for price range symbols that each have the same time period. The present disclosure provides bar charts or histograms of volume or technical indicators to be displayed within a candle body (Schneider Paragraph 0014).
Regarding Claim 1, Morais teaches a processor-implemented method for data analysis (Paragraph 0066 teaches FIG. 4 is a flowchart 400 for dynamic execution of distributed records based on trigger conditions, according to an embodiment; note that one or more steps, processes, and methods described herein of flowchart 400 may be omitted, performed in a different sequence, or combined as desired or appropriate).
Regarding Claim 27, Morais teaches a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium for instruction execution, the computer program product comprising code which causes one or more processors to perform operations (Paragraphs 0030 and 0076 teaches data stored on one or more computer readable mediums to implement the various applications, data, and steps described herein; for example, such instructions may be stored in one or more computer readable media such as memories or data storage devices internal and/or external to various components of system; logic may be encoded in a computer readable medium, which may refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor(s) for execution; such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media; non-volatile media includes optical or magnetic disks, volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as system memory component, and transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including wires that comprise bus; the logic is encoded in non-transitory computer readable medium).
Regarding Claim 28, Morais teaches a computer system for instruction execution comprising: a memory which stores instructions; one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored, are configured to perform operations (Paragraph 0030 teaches computing device, distributed network participants, and transaction processor may each include one or more processors, memories, and other appropriate components for executing instructions such as program code and/or data stored on one or more computer readable mediums to implement the various applications, data, and steps described herein).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the creating includes collecting, from the one or more blockchains, transaction data associated with the plurality of on-chain transactions, wherein the collecting is based on a private blockchain data indexer.
Schneider further teaches wherein the creating includes collecting, from the one or more blockchains, transaction data associated with the plurality of on-chain transactions, wherein the collecting is based on a private blockchain data indexer (Paragraphs 0239 teaches FIG. 33-A is a flowchart illustrating the steps performed for generating a data structure used to generate a HLC or OHLC type symbol in accordance with the present disclosure; when a network access device receives real-time market price data a device processor in operative communication with a charting engine can process the stream of fluctuating prices, each price occurring at a different corresponding to a unique time within a time period and determine from the received plurality of the prices, an open price corresponding to a start of the time period, a highest price corresponding to a first time within the time period, a lowest price corresponding to a second time within the time period, and a close price corresponding to an end of the time period; a highest symbol position value indicating when the first time occurred between the start of the time period and the end of the time period can be calculated as well as a lowest symbol position value indicating when the second time occurred between the start of the time period and the end of the time period can be calculated; the time period, the open price, the highest price, the lowest price, the close price, the highest symbol position value, and the lowest symbol position value can be stored in association with one another in the data structure on a non-transitory computer readable medium).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider for the creating to include collecting, from the one or more blockchains, transaction data associated with the plurality of on-chain transactions, wherein the collecting is based on a private blockchain data indexer.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because candlestick patterns are commonly used in technical analysis to describe price movements over time of traded objects of value such as securities (e.g., stocks, bonds, ETFs, mutual funds, etc.), derivatives (e.g., options, forwards, futures, swaps, etc.), indices, commodities, or currencies further including cryptocurrencies as a class of digital asset. Other digital assets can include tokens, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and the tokenization of contracts, physical assets such as real property, intangible property, and intellectual property. Such candlestick symbols and patterns can further depict the ratio of price movements between a plurality of assets, currency pairs including cryptocurrency pairs and token pairs, or traded objects of value (Schneider Paragraph 0135).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach transforming the transaction data, wherein the transforming produces the provable ordered transaction history.
Schneider further teaches transforming the transaction data, wherein the transforming produces the provable ordered transaction history (Paragraph 0133 teaches FIG. 4-B illustrates a portion of a data structure for market data such as OHLC data; the data structure can include data fields including a date/time, an open price, a high price, a low price, a close price, and a volume; each data record is representative of such data for a given time period, and in turn, is used to represent a plurality of intra-time periods within a larger given time period).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider to transform the transaction data, wherein the transforming produces the provable ordered transaction history.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because of the same reasons listed above for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes a start block and an end block.
Schneider further teaches wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes a start block and an end block (Paragraphs 0239 teaches a device processor in operative communication with a charting engine can process the stream of fluctuating prices, each price occurring at a different corresponding to a unique time within a time period and determine from the received plurality of the prices, an open price corresponding to a start of the time period, a highest price corresponding to a first time within the time period, a lowest price corresponding to a second time within the time period, and a close price corresponding to an end of the time period).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider for the provable ordered transaction history to include a start block and an end block.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because the time period, the open price, the highest price, the lowest price, the close price, the highest symbol position value, and the lowest symbol position value can be stored in step 3330 in association with one another in the data structure on a non-transitory computer readable medium. For example, when a candlestick is selected as the OHLC type symbol from the symbol rendering method 2840, the highest symbol position value can be considered an upper wick position value, and the lowest symbol position value considered as a lower wick position value. The present disclosure can further include generating the data structure in real-time from time/sales data of a live open market streamed during the time period as well as generate the HLC or OHLC type symbol from data stored in the data structure (Schneider Paragraphs 0239-0240).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes one or more timestamps.
Schneider further teaches wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes one or more timestamps (Paragraphs 0133 and 0239 teach FIG. 4-B illustrates a portion of a data structure for market data such as OHLC data; for instance, each data record shows the OHLC data for a one minute interval based on the time data which can define a first intra-time period, a second intra-time period, a third intra-time period, and can continue to an endless number of intra-time periods up to a last or final intra-time period; for instance, if the given time period of interest is a five minute interval, then five data records of one minute intervals would be used to as five intra-time periods; FIG. 33-A is a flowchart illustrating the steps performed for generating a data structure used to generate a OHLC type symbol in accordance with the present disclosure; when a network access device receives real-time market price data a device processor in operative communication with a charting engine can process the stream of fluctuating prices, each price occurring at a different corresponding to a unique time within a time period and determine from the received plurality of the prices).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider for the provable ordered transaction history to include one or more timestamps.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because of the same reasons listed above for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach storing the provable ordered transaction history, wherein the storing is accomplished off chain.
Schneider further teaches storing the provable ordered transaction history, wherein the storing is accomplished off chain (Paragraphs 0150 and 0158 teach a device processor can receive time/sales data and parse through all sales for a given time period; the first sale of the period is the open price and last sale of the period is the close price; after all sales are parsed it can be determined which sale at what time had the highest price as well as which sale at what time had the lowest price; enhanced OHLC data can be generated by the processor and stored to include the absolute time of the highest price and absolute time of the lowest price for the time period which can be stored as a data record or delimited list; the data provider device of a publisher can receive a request to download an enhanced candlestick chart data feed and send a flash object that includes the enhanced candlestick chart to the network access device of a user/subscriber that can be opened and displayed in a browser or embedded into an electronic document; further, the network access device can store in a memory, an enhanced candlestick price chart display applet that runs in a standard Java virtual machine (JVM) executing within a browser or make API calls to receive real-time streaming enhanced OHLC data and/or enhanced candlestick chart publishing data from the charting engine of the data provider device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider to store the provable ordered transaction history, wherein the storing is accomplished off chain.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because newly packaged enhanced OHLC data makes adoption to enhanced candlestick charts quicker and easier (Schneider Paragraph 0150). It’s quicker and easier for charting engines to generate enhanced candlesticks, as referenced throughout the instant disclosure (Schneider Paragraph 0152).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach backtesting the decision strategy, wherein the backtesting is based on the provable ordered transaction history.
Schneider further teaches backtesting the decision strategy, wherein the backtesting is based on the provable ordered transaction history (Paragraphs 0157 and 0160 teach there are different types of market data available used to render and display an enhanced candlestick chart such as real-time streaming live data when a given market is open and historical data used for research, technical analysis, and back-testing; such charting products can be accessed via a sole charting subscription or can be integrated in conjunction with an online brokerage account to trade, simulate, and back-test the trade of assets).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider to backtest the decision strategy, wherein the backtesting is based on the provable ordered transaction history.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because enhanced OHLC data will be particularly useful for historical data to enable users to visualize enhanced candlesticks over longer time periods spanning years or decades if need be (Schneider Paragraph 0157).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach optimizing the one or more decision strategies, wherein the optimizing is based on the backtesting.
Schneider further teaches optimizing the one or more decision strategies, wherein the optimizing is based on the backtesting (Paragraph 0012 and 0258 teach the present disclosure enables enhanced OHLC data to assist a user with research, analysis, and back-testing with historical data to visualize enhanced candlestick chart data over longer time periods of years or even decades; charting engine is the core software necessary for a charting program to run and integrate charts into a widget, an application, or on a platform; charting engines tend to offer the same basic technical analysis indicators and in some cases can include a complete programming language for creating more indicators, or testing different trading strategies).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider to optimize the one or more decision strategies, wherein the optimizing is based on the backtesting.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because due to the expanded visual symbol set of unique enhanced candlesticks, a chart pattern recognition and analysis module can be applied to enhanced candlestick, OHLC price bar, or HLC price bar sequences of varying pattern length, using Artificial Intelligence type (AI) deterministic algorithms including machine learning algorithms, Bayesian networks, neural networks, or fuzzy systems. In some embodiments, any number of stochastic algorithms can be implemented including: genetic algorithms or Monte Carlo algorithms. By applying such methods, a prediction of the next type of enhanced candlestick or price bar that could occur in a current unfolding sequence or progression of emerging enhanced candlestick patterns can be made (Schneider Paragraph 0161).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Morais further teaches verifying that the at least one new blockchain transaction was executed according to the decision strategy (Paragraphs 0072-0073 teaches if it is determined that the trigger condition is met, the smart contract is executed to convert the amount of funds from the first currency to the second currency; executing the smart contract may correspond to processing a currency exchange transaction that converts the amount of funds from the first currency to the second currency and releasing the amount of funds in that second currency to the recipient of the funds; after the smart contract is executed, the smart contract may be marked as executed, voided, and/or otherwise completed so that the corresponding blockchain is updated with a record for the execution of the smart contract; this may be used so that the blockchain oracle no longer monitors the smart contract's exchange rate for contract execution; however, the trigger condition is not met, then it is determined whether to void the smart contract and return the amount to the user or automatically execute the smart contract at the exchange rate on the last day of the waiting time (e.g., for the smart contract)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the plurality of on-chain transactions includes off-chain information that was stored on-chain by one or more oracles (Paragraph 0055 and 0057 teach blockchain oracle may include operations for determining parameters for smart contract, including the trigger condition(s) and/or wait time, and monitor for these conditions using a live exchange center; live exchange center may provide live data for exchange rates and other conversion data between different currencies; blockchain oracle may therefore monitor different data after persisting smart contract on the blockchain in a record, which may occur live, in real-time or near real-time, and/or at certain time intervals; thus, blockchain oracle may pull data from live exchange center for the exchange rate and/or may push data to a distributed digital ledger for smart contract for dynamic execution of smart contract; in the trigger condition is met within the wait time, a converted amount may be provided to receiver in second currency; the converted amount may be based on smart contract parameters and based on executing one or more currency exchange transactions based on smart contract).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of on-chain transactions comprises a live data feed of the one or more blockchains.
Schneider further teaches wherein the plurality of on-chain transactions comprises a live data feed of the one or more blockchains (Paragraph 0157, 0135, and 0240 teach there are different types of market data available used to render and display an enhanced candlestick chart such as real-time streaming live data when a given market is open; candlestick patterns are commonly used in technical analysis to describe price movements over time of traded objects of value such as cryptocurrencies, tokens, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs); the present disclosure can further including generating the data structure in real-time from time/sales data of a live open market streamed during the time period as well as generate the HLC or OHLC type symbol from data stored in the data structure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider for the plurality of on-chain transactions to comprise a live data feed of the one or more blockchains.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because such candlestick symbols and patterns can further depict the ratio of price movements between a plurality of assets, currency pairs including cryptocurrency pairs and token pairs, or traded objects of value (Schneider Paragraph 0135).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes an open-high-low-close (OHLC) candle format, wherein the OHLC candle format includes volume.
Schneider further teaches wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes an open-high-low-close (OHLC) candle format, wherein the OHLC candle format includes volume (Paragraph 0133 teaches FIG. 4-B illustrates a portion of a data structure for market data such as OHLC data; the data structure can include data fields including a date/time, an open price, a high price, a low price, a close price, and a volume).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the further teachings of Schneider for the provable ordered transaction history to include an open-high-low-close (OHLC) candle format, wherein the OHLC candle format includes volume.
There is motivation to further combine Schneider into the combination of Morais and Schneider because OHLC (Open-High-Low-Close) charts offer several significant advantages for traders and analysts due to their ability to condense comprehensive price information into a single data point for any given time period.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the tokenized asset is a cryptocurrency (Paragraphs 0015, 0042, and 0044 teach a user may wish to process a transaction, such as for a payment to another user or a transfer of cryptocurrency; smart contracts may also be established for mixed currency types, such as from fiat or physical currency to cryptocurrency or other digital and/or decentralized currency; in this regard, smart contracts may designate the currency conversion rates on different exchanges for different types of currencies, such as foreign exchange systems and/or cryptocurrency exchanges and purchase/selling platforms; blockchain oracle operation may monitor exchange rates with different types of currency exchange systems; for example, when exchanging USD to cryptocurrency, or vice versa, the smart contracts may monitor the value of the cryptocurrency in USD or other fiat currency and may execute a purchase or sale transaction of the cryptocurrency).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the decision strategy includes one or more protection parameters (Paragraph 0043 teaches the trigger conditions may correspond to a requested exchange rate, amount, or conversion percentage, as well as an amount of time until either the smart contract is automatically executed, or the funds are returned to the remittance party, the buyer, or the seller; the trigger condition may also include patterns or trends in currency exchange rates, such as changes in moving averages, previous time period rate changes, and the like).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the executing includes validating, by the smart contract, the one or more action instructions, wherein the validating is based on the one or more protection parameters (Paragraphs 0071-0072 teach the exchange rate is monitored, over the time period, for the trigger condition; monitoring of the exchange rate may work in conjunction with the blockchain and smart contracts recorded in the blockchain; for example, a blockchain oracle may be used to push data to the blockchain and/or monitoring operations for the exchange rate and smart contracts, as well as pull data from one or more live exchanges; the blockchain oracle may be used as blockchains may not have functionality to push or pull data from external resources as they function as an isolated network of the distributed computing nodes; instead, the blockchain oracle may correspond to a system that may operate on and off-chain simultaneously in order to facilitate communications between the blockchain and the external live exchange system; it is determined if the trigger condition is met based on the monitored exchange rate; this determination may be based on the exchange rate meeting or exceeding a certain value, percentage conversion, or other rate; however, additional trigger conditions may also depend on trends, changes, or patterns in exchange rates, as well as a remaining amount of time until expiration of the established time period).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the one or more protection parameters include a list of allowed exchanges (Paragraph 0045 teaches additional triggers may also void a contract, which may be set by the user requesting the currency exchange and/or determined by transaction processor; for example, a location-based trigger may void a smart contract if a user is detected as in and/or moving to a specific location (e.g., a country), such as one associated with the base currency the funds are provided in. This may occur so that the user may retain the proper currency for the user's location; further, if multiple matching transactions are detected at once, one or more smart contracts may be voided to avoid duplication of transactions and/or fraud; transaction processing application may further execute a privacy and/or risk detection system in order to determine whether a smart contract should be voided based on detected risk, user privacy, and/or potential fraud).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the one or more protection parameters include a risk score (Paragraphs 0045 and 0052 teach transaction processing application may further execute a privacy and/or risk detection system in order to determine whether a smart contract should be voided based on detected risk, user privacy, and/or potential fraud; for example, the smart contract may be voided if fraud is detected, or a risk score meets or exceeds a threshold risk).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the developing, the deploying, and the sending include one or more additional decision strategies (Paragraph 0045 teaches additional triggers may also void a contract, which may be set by the user requesting the currency exchange and/or determined by transaction processor; for example, a location-based trigger may void a smart contract if a user is detected as in and/or moving to a specific location (e.g., a country), such as one associated with the base currency the funds are provided in; this may occur so that the user may retain the proper currency for the user's location; further, if multiple matching transactions are detected at once, one or more smart contracts may be voided to avoid duplication of transactions and/or fraud; transaction processing application may further execute a privacy and/or risk detection system in order to determine whether a smart contract should be voided based on detected risk, user privacy, and/or potential fraud).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the executing the at least one new blockchain transaction occurs in a trustless fashion (Paragraph 0043 teaches smart contract operations may generate one or more smart contracts, which each may have an amount of funds; a single smart contract may be established by smart contract operations for a currency exchange transaction, which may have one or more trigger conditions; the trigger conditions may correspond to a requested exchange rate, amount, or conversion percentage, as well as an amount of time until either the smart contract is automatically executed, or the funds are returned to the remittance party, the buyer, or the seller).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Morais further teaches wherein the executing the at least one new blockchain transaction occurs in a trustless fashion (Paragraphs 0043 and 0052 teach smart contract operations may generate one or more smart contracts, which each may have an amount of funds; a single smart contract may be established by smart contract operations for a currency exchange transaction, which may have one or more trigger conditions; the trigger conditions may correspond to a requested exchange rate, amount, or conversion percentage, as well as an amount of time until either the smart contract is automatically executed; the smart contract may instead be automatically executed at the expiration of the wait time and the funds may be paid in second currency to receiver, or instead the funds in first currency may be provided to receiver).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morais (US 20230136805) in view of Schneider (US 20210334866) in further view of Cordi (US 12,118,127).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes a combined hash, wherein the combined hash is based on one or more blocks from the one or more blockchains which contain the plurality of on-chain transactions.
Cordi from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the provable ordered transaction history includes a combined hash, wherein the combined hash is based on one or more blocks from the one or more blockchains which contain the plurality of on-chain transactions (Col. 19, lines 5-16 teaches FIG. 15 shows an example staggered blockchain data architecture for efficient storing and retrieval of hash data by the machine data validation system, according to some example embodiments; at a high level, in the approach of FIG. 15, hashes and batch hashes are stored in a lightweight, relatively less immutable but inexpensive to access blockchain (e.g., permissioned chain, a permissionless chain with low crypto-costs per transaction) while groups of batch hashes are combined to generate combined batch hashes, which are stored in a more robust, highly immutable but more expensive blockchain (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Cordi for the provable ordered transaction history to include a combined hash, wherein the combined hash is based on one or more blocks from the one or more blockchains which contain the plurality of on-chain transactions.
There is motivation to combine Cordi into the combination of Morais and Schneider because in this way, the costs of hash management via blockchain interactions is made more efficient while ensuring that the data is secure and trustworthy (e.g., via storage in the highly immutable chain). In particular, and in accordance with some example embodiments, each of the machine data items 1505 (e.g., raw items 605A-N) is hashed to generate the respective hashes 1510 (e.g., item hashes 610A-N) that are stored in a first tier of immutable storage 1525, which is configured as a low-cost and fast data store that has weak immutability (e.g., object storage database such as Amazon S3, a relational database) (Cordi Col. 19, lines 16-26).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morais (US 20230136805) in view of Schneider (US 20210334866) in further view of Jang (US 20210056628).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more protection parameters include a list of allowed trading pairs.
Jang from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more protection parameters include a list of allowed trading pairs (Paragraphs 0073-0074 teach the cryptocurrency exchange allows buy/sell for each pair of a trading coin and a market coin [trading coin/market coin]; for example, if Ethereum (ETH) and Link (LN) are listed on the BTC market that allows trading using Bitcoin (BTC), trading may be allowed for each pair, for example, a pair of ETH coin and BTC coin [ETH/BTC] and a pair of LN coin and BTC coin [LN/BTC]; since the cryptocurrency exchange allows trading for each pair of a market cryptocurrency (market coin) and a trading cryptocurrency (trading coin) (hereinafter, also, referred to as market-and-coin pair or market coin-and-trading coin pair), a user may not be allowed to exchange a trading coin by simply selecting the trading coin alone without selecting a market (or a market coin) in the related art).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Jang for the one or more protection parameters to include a list of allowed trading pairs.
There is motivation to combine Jang into the combination of Morais and Schneider because provide optimization trading information that allows the user to buy/sell coins at the most favorable price or to buy/sell a largest number of coins through an automation logic (Jang Paragraph 0081).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morais (US 20230136805) in view of Schneider (US 20210334866) in further view of Heitkotter (US 20220318911).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more protection parameters include a maximum position size.
Heitkotter from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more protection parameters include a maximum position size (Paragraph 0058 teaches some of the parameters during recommendation, for consideration by the user may be customized based on the user selection criteria or preference and the past performance estimate; one such parameter may include position size; the position size is determined based on the total risk the user chooses to take based on his or her aversion or attraction for risk; the user's total investible cash in his or her account is placed against a calculatable risk taking capacity which is based on the total maximum stop loss which is possible should the security move in a direction against the hopes of the user's desired direction; position size may be calculated as risk amount divided by the stop loss (risk amount/stop loss)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Heitkotter for the one or more protection parameters to include a maximum position size.
There is motivation to combine Heitkotter into the combination of Morais and Schneider because disclosed is a technical solution for recommending securities for trading. Broadly, the solution uses momentum indicators of securities to identify securities that may be considered for recommendation. Securities that satisfy certain criteria relating to momentum indicators are processed to determine whether they have reached certain trigger points, and those which have, may be considered investment worthy. Historical data corresponding to such investment-worthy securities is processed to identify optimized exit prices for profit target and stop loss. Further, those investment-worthy securities that meet user criteria at least based on historical performance, which may be derived using certain factors used for identifying the optimized exit prices, may be recommended to the user. Detailed explanation of the solution follows (Heitkotter Paragraph 0027).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morais (US 20230136805) in view of Schneider (US 20210334866) in further view of Bean (US 20200211109).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more protection parameters include a quality of trade price information.
Bean from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more protection parameters include a quality of trade price information (Paragraph 0086 and 0171 teach a Volume Weighted Average (VWA) is used to establish price value for the assets from remaining DEXs; the VWA may compared with the parameters in OO; after the liquidateTrade method has been called, the bZx contract makes a call to the bZxOracle contract (FIG. 1) to determine whether the position has gone under margin maintenance; the bZxOracle contract pulls from the most liquid three decentralized exchange APIs. The average disagreement between each price provided by the API is calculated; the DEX which provided the number with the highest average disagreement is discarded and the two remaining DEXs are used in the calculation of the volume weighted average price).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Bean for the one or more protection parameters to include a quality of trade price information.
There is motivation to combine Bean into the combination of Morais and Schneider because temporary, erroneous prices are prevented from allowing a borrower to be wrongly liquidated. This also provides protection against bounty hunters seeking to maliciously liquidate orders to extract a greater sum of bounties. While more sophisticated outlier detection algorithms might seem preferable, the platform may opt for this method to limit gas costs. The platform may initially only be using the on-chain price feed from KyberNetwork until other secure on-chain price feeds come online (Bean Paragraph 0171).
Claim 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morais (US 20230136805) in view of Schneider (US 20210334866) in further view of Turetsky (US 20200118068).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more blockchains include a proprietary blockchain.
Turetsky from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more blockchains include a proprietary blockchain (Paragraph 0057 teaches a private permissioned blockchain that includes multiple nodes run by different participants in the class of GTM operations that corresponds to a particular GTM childchain).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Turetsky for the one or more blockchains to include a proprietary blockchain.
There is motivation to combine Turetsky into the combination of Morais and Schneider because there are three key advantages to the implicit nature of a private blockchain: Reduction in transaction costs and data redundancies. Simplified data-handling and more automated compliance mechanisms. Faster transaction execution time overall (Turetsky Paragraphs 0039-0042).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Morais and Schneider teaches all the limitations of claim 23 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein transactions on the proprietary blockchain are not permissionless.
Turetsky from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein transactions on the proprietary blockchain are not permissionless (Paragraph 0038 teaches a private blockchain is permissioned; nobody can join it unless permission is granted by a network administrator; participant and validator access is restricted).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Morais and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Turetsky for transactions on the proprietary blockchain to not be permissionless.
There is motivation to combine Turetsky into the combination of Morais and Schneider because of the same reasons listed above for claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Negron (US 20240046352) teaches methods and systems are directed to providing an algorithmic trading system. One or more self-executing contracts are deployed on a blockchain network to provide at least one indicator and at least one comparator. Each indicator processes external asset data to obtain indicator values. Each comparator processes one or more of the indicator values to obtain output indicating whether a comparator condition is met. A trading bot is generated on the blockchain network to implement predetermined trading rules by using the output of at least one comparator. The trading bot may execute simulated trades according to the predetermined trading rules.
Hall et al. (US 11,934,425) teaches a system and method for capturing changes in trade information that impact trade authorization and for updating a chain state on a distributed chain database that is used to authorize trades are disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the system comprises: a trade controller configured to obtain a current state from a local database; a rules engine configured to be invoked by the trade controller to apply a ruleset to data extracted from the local database to generate an updated state; an operation auto detector configured to generate a plan to update a chain state on the distributed chain database based at least in part on the updated state; and an execution engine configured to execute the plan and to generate an updated chain state that is used to authorize trades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469) 295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights