Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on July 12, 2024, the response to the Restriction/Election requirement filed on February 27, 2026, and the amendments to the claims filed on September 21, 2026.
Specification
The use of the term LINDEN is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation, “an account owner user” in line 2 of claim 74 renders the claim indefinite. Specifically it is unclear if the “account owner user” recited in claim 74 is the same as recited in claim 66 or if it is a separate “account owner user. Appropriate correction is required.
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 66, 67, and 69-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 66, 67, and 69-77 are directed to a system which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 66 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 66 recites the limitations of providing access to one or more currency issuer users; maintaining, in an accounting system accessed by the at least one processor, electronic book entries representing base-money balances of a base money, wherein the base money is commodity-based and 100% reserved; receiving requests for one or more issuance transactions with at least one of the one or more currency issuer users to issue wherein, for an or de-issue an issuance or de-issuance amount of the base money; wherein, for an issuance transaction, the issuance amount is supported by a corresponding 100% reserve of a physical commodity and, for a de-issuance transaction, a source account possesses an available base-money balance at least equal to the de-issuance amount; authenticating the one or more issuance transactions; authorizing the one or more issuance transactions, if authenticated; providing access to a plurality of account owner users; receiving requests from one or more of the plurality of account owner users to add a credit amount of base money to an end user account; authenticating the request to add the credit amount of base money; authorizing the request to add the credit amount of base money, if authenticated; receiving requests from one or more of the plurality of account owner users to remove a debit amount of base money from an end user account; authenticating the request to remove the debit amount of base money; authorizing the request to remove the debit amount of base money, if authenticated; receiving requests for one or more payment transactions between accounts of account owner users of the plurality of account owner users in a payment amount of base money; authenticating the one or more payment transactions; authorizing the one or more payment transactions if authenticated; wherein the system is a closed system and wherein the base money is circulation is maintained as the electronic book entries in the accounting system, the base money is transferrable only amount accounts of the system, and outside money is not entered into the accounting system as a base-money balance.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Administering a closed alternative currency recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one processor and at least one memory in Claim 66 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The providing access, the accounting system, receiving requests, authenticating, and authorizing in Claim 66 appears to be just software. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite at least one processor and at least one memory in Claim 66. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 66 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification section 113 about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claim 66 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 67 and 69-77 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 66 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claim 67 further details crediting/debiting of accounts; Claims 69-71 and 77 further defines the base currency and its use; Claims 72 adds the use of a second currency without adding significantly more; Claims 73 and 74 provide further details to the user enrollment and authentication; Claim 75 further defines the commodity as gold; Claim 76 further details the transaction steps without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 67 and 69-77 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 66, 67, and 69-77 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections of record (Remarks, pages 2-3) have been considered, however all of the rejections have not been overcome. Please see the 35 USC 112 rejections, as advanced above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 3-5) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims now recite the “accounting system” previously set forth in claim 68, which has been cancelled in the instant amendments. However, this limitation was also previously rejected under 35 USC 101 and is therefore still considered to be rejected here. Please see the amended rejection as advanced above.
Applicant’s arguments that amended claim 66 provide, “a practical application of computer technology to a particular electronic settlement architecture” and “is directed to a particular technological implementation for maintaining and controlling electronic book-entry base-money balances and for enforcing defined system-boundary, reserve, account-balance, authentication, and transaction-authorization conditions” (Remarks, pages 4-5) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, the claims only recite at least one processor and at least one memory in Claim 66. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. Therefore, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
10/5/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
