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
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to application number 18876445 filed on December 18, 2024. Claims 16-30 are currently pending, and have been examined.
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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 16-28 are directed to a “method”; claim 29 is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”; and claim 30 is directed to an “apparatus”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 16 recites “restricting withdrawal of assets”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “An information processing method executed by a computer, comprising: acquiring demand-supply information related to demand or supply for crypto assets on a block chain system; and restricting, based on acquired demand-supply information, a transfer quantity of tokens that can be converted into the crypto assets held by a user”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “executed by a computer” and “crypto assets on a block chain system”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “restricting withdrawal of assets”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “restricting withdrawal of assets” using computer technology (e.g., “a computer” and “crypto assets on a block chain system”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 16 is non-statutory.
Claim 29 also recites the abstract idea of “restricting withdrawal of assets”, as well the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute processing of: …” and “crypto assets on a block chain system”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “restricting withdrawal of assets”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “restricting withdrawal of assets” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute processing of: …” and “crypto assets on a block chain system”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 29 is non-statutory.
Claim 30 also recites the abstract idea of “restricting withdrawal of assets”, as well the additional elements of “An information processing apparatus, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: …”, and “crypto assets on a block chain system”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “restricting withdrawal of assets”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “restricting withdrawal of assets” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: …” and “an information processing apparatus”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 30 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 17-28 further describe the abstract idea of “restricting withdrawal of assets”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 16 and 29-30.
Dependent claims 17-22 and 25-28 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “restricting withdrawal of assets”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 23-24 recite a new additional element of “a learning model”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 16-30 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19, 22, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen et al, US 20200202311 A1.
As per claim 16, Allen discloses an information processing method executed by a computer, comprising:
acquiring demand-supply information related to demand or supply (para 67, “… The ability to effectively stabilize the value of digital coins depends also on their demand … to correct a deflation period it is necessary to have some digital coins transaction where a part of the utility tokens can be converted into reserve tokens. This may be necessary even during an inflation period if the amount of reserve tokens to convert into utility tokens is not enough. Therefore, the higher the demand of digital coins the higher the number of transactions. Events that can influence the demand are i) prices applied by miners, ii) usage by developers: demand will be high as long as developers will pay less to use system 200 than the alternatives (e.g., cloud platforms and CDNs) while having the same performance, iii) performance of the network and/or service: quality of service from developers to end users will increase or decrease the demand, and iv) popularity of the network: more new end users, developers, and miners participating in the system 200 will increase the number of transactions. All these factors together will contribute to increase demand and cause the value of digital coins stabilize, which in turn will guarantee a predictable income for miners and a predictable expense for developers …”; para 70, “… The simulator has been created by modifying BazaarBot an existing actor-based free market simulator engine. Its purpose is to simulate an economy where multiple actor can trade goods. Then, based on the demand and supply of each good, their change in price is simulated … the profits of every actor are simulated as well. BazaarBot proved to be a very good starting point because it allowed us to simulate the change in price of digital coins. The main changes to the existing simulator consisted of creating new actor, developing the logic that they had to follow to trade digital coins and modifying the system of beliefs that each actor has …”; para 90, “… in the first round of the simulation the system has no idea about what the demand and supply of digital coins will be, and thus the digital coins price will not be stable right away. It will need some iterations in order to stabilize. The maximum size of the reserve pool represents how many tokens it can hold, and it impacts the time when the investor pool will be able to start to fill up. Both these values have been set to 5,000 tokens …”) for crypto assets on a block chain system (para 28, “… The digital coins can be cryptocurrency tokens earned for participation within a blockchain and/or purchased through an exchange. In some embodiments, the digital coins can be used by network users to make transactions and compensate miners or other users participating within a network …”; para 40, “… the tokens are made available to users through a smart contract on a blockchain. At step 102 some portion of the initial quantity of digital coins is made available to developers as utility tokens for distribution as compensation in return for services rendered by miners (e.g., via system 10) … the developers are multimedia broadcasters that use intermediary miner nodes to stream multimedia to subscribing user devices and compensates with the utility token …”); and
restricting, based on acquired demand-supply information, a transfer quantity of tokens that can be converted into the crypto assets held by a user (para 38, “… the value for the digital coins can be pegged to a government issued currency (e.g., fiat currency) … one unit of the digital coins can be pegged to one United States Dollar (USD), such that one digital coins is worth $1 USD … the volume of the digital coins will be controlled such that only a fixed amount of digital coins will be put in circulation at a given point in time. An initial value and volume of digital coins supply will generate a market cap. The market cap can be determined by multiplying the number of digital coins in circulation by the value per coin …”).
As per claim 17, Allen discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute processing of defining details of the restriction in correspondence with a holding quantity of the crypto assets by the user (para 58, “… the system uses the market cap to determine the new token supply and the difference with the current supply is the amount of tokens that need to be converted. This amount then can be calculated as a percentage of the reserve tokens. The reserve tokens can be burned after the conversion so they do not exist anymore, like they were transformed from reserve tokens to utility tokens …”).
As per claim 18, Allen discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute processing of defining details of the restriction in correspondence with a holding quantity by an operator (FIG. 5A, items 502, 504, 506; para 60, “… FIG. 5A, … a stabilization process 500 … the initial state of process 500 includes an initial digital coins supply of 500 million and an initial market cap is equal to the 500 million multiplied by the fixed currency value of $1 USD to equal $500 million USD. During an inflation period the value of the digital coins drops to $1.05 USD and the current supply is X tokens to have a market cap of $1.05X. By monitoring the market value, an inflation period can be identified (e.g., by stabilizer 18) and a deflation period can be initiated. During this inflation period, stabilizer 18 will keep the value of digital coins stable by determining what should be the new supply of digital coins (e.g., to adjust the market cap to reflect a digital coin value of $1 USD) (STEP 502). If the market cap is assumed to be constant then the new supply will be equal to Y representing the market cap divided by the target value of $1 USD, and thus, Y is equal to $1.05X divided by $1 or $1.1X. Using the values for the initial state yields Y equals $1.05 multiplied by 500 million to equal 525 million. With the inflated market value Y, the stabilizer 18 can determine an amount of digital coins to convert to stabilize the value (STEP 504) … the conversation of reserve tokens to utility tokens would be equal to Y minus X …, 525 million minus 500 million resulting in a conversion of 25 million reserve tokens. This amount can be taken as a percentage from the reserve pool, or investor pool if necessary (STEP 506). The steps in process 500 can repeat itself until stabilization of the digital coin value is reached … ”).
As per claim 19, Allen discloses the information processing method according to claim 17 causing a computer to execute processing of restricting the transfer quantity for all users (FIG. 5C, para 61, “… Given the distribution of the reserve tokens in the respective pools, all the tokens in the reserve pool will be converted (16 million) together with 9 million reserve tokens taken from the second portion of the investor pool, totaling the required 25 million reserve tokens. FIG. 5C depicts the status of the reserve tokens in each of the investor pool and the reserve pool after the calculated reserve tokens have been converted to utility tokens during the inflation process 500 …”).
As per claim 22, Allen discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of reporting removal of the restriction to the user (para 48, “… During a deflation period, the price of digital coins will tend to decrease over time (e.g., digital coins <$1 USD). To counteract the decreasing value, it may be necessary to lower the market cap of the digital coins … increased digital coin values can be achieved by converting utility tokens into reserve tokens instead of minting them (e.g., at step 104) … a smart contract can be used to calculate the current valuation of digital coins and then force the conversion process accordingly. The exact amount of tokens that will need to be converted will depend on the deflation rate. The higher the number of transactions occurring, the lower the percentage of tokens for each transaction that needs to be converted into reserve tokens. This is important because if the overall number of transaction is low, and 100% of the tokens of a transaction needs to be converted, then the miners would not earn any utility tokens …”).
As per claim 27, Allen discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of removing the restriction after a lapse of a predetermined time period from a start of the restriction (para 44, “… reserve tokens stored in the investor pool can be allocated based on a predetermined period of time in which they were received and paid out periodically to investors who own security tokens … reserve tokens can be stored in the investor pool based on the fiscal quarter when they were generated and at the end of every quarter the reserve tokens from the previous quarter will be paid out to investors proportionally to their security tokens (e.g., shares). The amount of reserve tokens in the investor pool may not always increase monotonically because, during high inflation periods, it may be necessary to convert a high number of reserve tokens into digital coins, and the reserve pool may be insufficient … the remaining required reserve tokens will be taken from the investor pool. …”).
As per claim 28, Allen discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of limiting a total quantity of withdrawals every predetermined time period for the crypto assets to a predetermined threshold or lower (FIG. 11; para 94, “… FIG. 11 shows the results obtained when the reserve tokens were used to stabilize the price of digital coins. It can be seen that besides some limited spikes most of the time the value of digital coins is very stable around 1 USD±5%. The initial spikes are due to the fact that the simulation needs some rounds to stabilize the token. That's because as soon as the system is started, the bank does not know how much the demand and supply will be. Moreover, the demand changes considerably in the first iterations as more developers spend tokens and try to buy new ones. This causes, digital coins to have their price change considerably. During this period, the bank is using the initial reserve tokens to limit these spikes as much as possible and regulate the price of digital coins. A prefilled reserve pool with a capacity of 5,000 tokens is able to contain the initial spike and stabilize digital coins in about 15 rounds which represent 15 days. The second biggest spike is contained in about 15 rounds as well. After that, once the token has been stabilized it never experiences a change above ±5% …”).
As per claim 29, Allen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute processing of (para 11, “… The computer program product includes a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable/executable by one or more computing devices to cause the one or more computing devices to …”; para 102, “… The computing device 1500 can include or interact with a variety of computer-readable media … computer-readable media can include Random Access Memory (RAM); Read Only Memory (ROM); Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EE-PROM); flash memory or other memory technologies; CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical or holographic media; magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices that can be used to encode information and can be accessed by the computing device 1500 …”): …
As per claim 30, Allen discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one memory (FIG. 15, item 1512; para 101, “… The computing device 1500 can include a bus 1510 that can be coupled to one or more of the following illustrative components, directly or indirectly: a memory 1512, one or more processors 1514, …”; para 103, “… The memory 1512 can include computer-storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The memory 1512 may be removable, non-removable, or any combination thereof. Exemplary hardware devices are devices such as hard drives, solid-state memory, optical-disc drives, and the like. The computing device 1500 can include one or more processors that read data from components such as the memory 1512, the various I/O components 1516, etc. …”); and
at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (FIG. 15, item 1514; para 101, “… The computing device 1500 can include a bus 1510 that can be coupled to one or more of the following illustrative components, directly or indirectly: a memory 1512, one or more processors 1514, …”; para 103, “… The computing device 1500 can include one or more processors that read data from components such as the memory 1512, the various I/O components 1516, etc. …”) to: …
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200202311 A1), herein referred to as Allen, and in further view of Gaur et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230092436 A1), herein referred to as Gaur.
Regarding claim 20, Allen discloses the limitations of claim 16. Allen does not specifically disclose, however, Gaur discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of:
acquiring a transfer history of the tokens of the user (para 34, “… This application can utilize a chain that is a trans-action log which is structured as hash-linked blocks, and each block contains a sequence of N transactions where N is equal to or greater than one. The block header includes a hash of the block's transactions, as well as a hash of the prior block's header… all transactions on the ledger may be sequenced and cryptographically linked together …”; FIG. 7C, item 770; para 140, “… Once the blockchain 770 is formed, at any point in time, the immutable chain-of-custody for the file may be obtained by querying the blockchain for the transaction history of the values across the blocks …”);” and
defining an individual restriction on the user based on the acquired transfer history (para 41, “… the lack of data may be a missing data value that is needed by the rules of the trade execution threshold engine. Here, the querying may return no results or not enough data about the digital asset that an additional verification is triggered … if the digital asset is not recorded on a safe list or a deny list, the trade execution threshold engine may determine to execute the additional verification … if compliance information of the digital asset cannot be obtained by querying the blockchain ledger of the digital asset (i.e., it is missing), the trade execution threshold engine may determine to perform the additional verification …”; para 42, “… based on the data attributes of the digital asset that are obtained from the native ledger, the trade execution threshold engine may compare the data attributes to a risk data model and determine a risk score for the digital asset. As long as the risk score is above a predefined threshold, the transaction can be automatically performed. However, if the trade execution engine cannot determine whether the asset is safe enough (e.g., determines that a risk score of the digital asset is below a threshold, etc.), the trade executing engine can require a user input or outright reject the transaction …”).
Gaur discloses a framework for demaraction of digital assets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a framework for demaraction of digital assets, as in Gaur, to improve and/or enhance the technology of stabilizing digital currency, as in Allen, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a framework for querying a blockchain ledger associated with a digital asset, in determining whether to execute the transaction with the digital asset based on one or more additional data attributes of the digital asset queried from the digital asset, in order to provide stabilization of the digital assets in making them a reliable currency for users in the system of stabilizing digital currency of Allen.
Regarding claim 23, Allen discloses the limitations of claim 16. Allen further discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of:
acquiring demand-supply information (para 70, “… The simulator has been created by modifying BazaarBot an existing actor-based free market simulator engine. Its purpose is to simulate an economy where multiple actor can trade goods. Then, based on the demand and supply of each good, their change in price is simulated … the profits of every actor are simulated as well. BazaarBot proved to be a very good starting point because it allowed us to simulate the change in price of digital coins. The main changes to the existing simulator consisted of creating new actor, developing the logic that they had to follow to trade digital coins and modifying the system of beliefs that each actor has …”) including a holding quantity of the crypto assets held by the user (para 58, “… the system uses the market cap to determine the new token supply and the difference with the current supply is the amount of tokens that need to be converted. This amount then can be calculated as a percentage of the reserve tokens. The reserve tokens can be burned after the conversion so they do not exist anymore, like they were transformed from reserve tokens to utility tokens …”) and a holding quantity of the crypto assets held by an operator (FIG. 5A, items 502, 504, 506; para 60, “… FIG. 5A, … a stabilization process 500 … the initial state of process 500 includes an initial digital coins supply of 500 million and an initial market cap is equal to the 500 million multiplied by the fixed currency value of $1 USD to equal $500 million USD. During an inflation period the value of the digital coins drops to $1.05 USD and the current supply is X tokens to have a market cap of $1.05X. By monitoring the market value, an inflation period can be identified (e.g., by stabilizer 18) and a deflation period can be initiated. During this inflation period, stabilizer 18 will keep the value of digital coins stable by determining what should be the new supply of digital coins (e.g., to adjust the market cap to reflect a digital coin value of $1 USD) (STEP 502). If the market cap is assumed to be constant then the new supply will be equal to Y representing the market cap divided by the target value of $1 USD, and thus, Y is equal to $1.05X divided by $1 or $1.1X. Using the values for the initial state yields Y equals $1.05 multiplied by 500 million to equal 525 million. With the inflated market value Y, the stabilizer 18 can determine an amount of digital coins to convert to stabilize the value (STEP 504) … the conversation of reserve tokens to utility tokens would be equal to Y minus X …, 525 million minus 500 million resulting in a conversion of 25 million reserve tokens. This amount can be taken as a percentage from the reserve pool, or investor pool if necessary (STEP 506). The steps in process 500 can repeat itself until stabilization of the digital coin value is reached … ”); and …
… when receiving input of demand-supply information including a holding quantity of a user (para 58) and holding quantity of an operator (FIG. 5A, items 502, 504, 506; para 60).
Allen does not specifically disclose, however, Gaur discloses inputting acquired demand-supply information to a learning model and acquiring a restriction on a transfer quantity, the learning model having been trained to output a restriction on a transfer quantity (FIG. 8A, items 800, 810;para 143, “… FIG. 8A illustrates an example 800 of a blockchain 810 which stores machine learning ( artificial intelligence) data. Machine learning relies on vast quantities of historical data (or training data) to build predictive models for accurate prediction on new data. Machine learn-ing software (e.g., neural networks, etc.) can often sift through millions of records to unearth non-intuitive patterns …”; FIG. 8A, items 820, 830; para 144, “… FIG. 8A, a host platform 820 builds and deploys a machine learning model for predictive monitoring of assets 830. Here, the host platform 820 may be a cloud platform, an industrial server, a web server, a personal computer, a user device, and the like. Assets 830 can be any type of asset (e.g., machine or equipment, etc.) … assets 830 may be non-tangible assets such as stocks, currency, digital coins, insurance, or the like …”) …
Gaur discloses a framework for demaraction of digital assets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a framework for demaraction of digital assets, as in Gaur, to improve and/or enhance the technology of stabilizing digital currency, as in Allen, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a framework for querying a blockchain ledger, which stores machine learning (artificial intelligence) data associated with a digital asset, in determining whether to execute the transaction with the digital asset based on one or more additional data attributes of the digital asset queried from the digital asset, in order to provide stabilization of the digital assets in making them a reliable currency for users in the system of stabilizing digital currency of Allen.
Regarding claim 24, Allen discloses the limitations of claim 16. Allen further discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of … including a holding quantity of the crypto assets held by the user (para 58) and a holding quantity of the crypto assets held by an operator (FIG. 5A, items 502, 504, 506; para 60), action information including a restriction on a withdrawal of the crypto assets and reward information including a variation of a total quantity of the crypto assets and a variation of a market price of the crypto assets (para 54, “… By converting utility tokens to reserve tokens and reducing the number of utility tokens or digital coins paid to miners, the total supply of digital coins will decrease and the value of the digital coins increases because the market cap will be automatically adjusted. The stabilization process may not be a onetime operation but can be performed continuously during a deflation period. This means that as the valuation of one digital coins gets closer to $1, the system will continue to recalculate the amount of utility tokens that need to be converted and the corresponding percentage for transaction … the newly created reserve tokens will first fill the reserve pool and then the investor pool at the maximum rate. Therefore, during deflation periods investors will still be able to maximize their dividends …”).
Allen does not specifically disclose, however, Gaur discloses … inputting acquired demand-supply information to a learning model and acquiring a restriction on a transfer quantity (FIG. 4A, items 401, 402, 420; para 83, “… the system may determine whether an identifier of the digital asset is already stored on a predefined safe list which includes a list of digital assets that are safe for trading and whether the digital asset is stored on a predefined deny list which includes a list of digital assets that are not safe for trading. If the rules are able to automatically identify digital asset on the safe list or the deny list, in 403, the system may forward the transaction to an exchange 430 for processing …; FIG. 4A, items 403, 404, 420; para 84, “… in 403, the system is unable to identify the digital asset on the safe list or the deny list, the system may determine to obtain additional information for the digital asset. In 404, the system identifies a blockchain ledger 420 associated with the digital asset and queries the blockchain ledger 420 for additional data attributes of the digital asset such as total volume of trades for the digital asset, total amount of the digital asset in circulation, type of the digital asset, reputation of users on the native blockchain network of the digital asset, … the block-chain ledger 420 may be the native ledger of the digital asset or it may be a native ledger of a different digital asset that is related to the digital asset of the trade request …”), the learning model having been reinforced-trained based on state information (FIG. 8A, items 802, 804, 810, 820, 830; para 145, “… The blockchain 810 can be used to significantly improve both a training process 802 of the machine learning model and a predictive process 804 based on a trained machine learning model … in 802, rather than requiring a data scientist/engineer or other user to collect the data, historical data may be stored by the assets 830 themselves (or through an intermediary, not shown) on the blockchain 810. This can significantly reduce the collection time needed by the host platform 820 when performing predictive model training … using smart contracts, data can be directly and reliably transferred straight from its place of origin to the blockchain 810. By using the blockchain 810 to ensure the security and ownership of the collected data, smart contracts may directly send the data from the assets to the individuals that use the data for building a machine learning model. This allows for sharing of data among the assets 830 …”)
Gaur discloses a framework for demaraction of digital assets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a framework for demaraction of digital assets, as in Gaur, to improve and/or enhance the technology of stabilizing digital currency, as in Allen, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a framework for querying a blockchain ledger, which stores machine learning (artificial intelligence) data associated with a digital asset, in determining whether to execute the transaction with the digital asset based on one or more additional data attributes of the digital asset queried from the digital asset, in order to provide stabilization of the digital assets in making them a reliable currency for users in the system of stabilizing digital currency of Allen.
Regarding claim 25, Allen discloses the limitations of claim 16. Allen does not specifically disclose, however, Gaur discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of:
acquiring an acquisition history of the crypto assets of the user (para 36, “… Digital assets such as non-fungible tokens (NFTs), cryptocurrency, stable coins, liquidity pools, collateralized debt positions, real estate, and the like may be represented by digital tokens and managed on blockchain ledgers …; para 40, “… newness of the digital asset and/or a lack of data available on the digital asset may trigger the trade execution threshold engine to perform the additional verification … newness may be determined based on how many days a digital asset has been in existence, a total volume of the digital asset in circulation, a number of transactions executed with the total volume of the digital asset in circulation, and the like. All of this information may be obtained by querying a native blockchain ledger of the digital asset (and its corresponding digital token) … if tokens corresponding to a digital asset have been in circulation for less than 180 days, it may automatically trigger an additional verification by the trade execution threshold engine …; para 46, “ … the query may return infor-mation such as a total volume of the digital asset (e.g., how many instances of the digital asset/digital token have been released and are in circulation), a total number of trades/ transactions with the digital asset, the age of the crypt asset, a type of the asset (e.g., collateralized debt, real estate, digital currency, NFT, stable coin, etc.), and the like …”); and
easing a restriction on the user based on acquired acquisition history (para 48, “… the trade execution threshold engine 111 may determine a risk score of the digital asset based on the attributes of the digital asset that are queried from the blockchain networks 130-160, including data from a native blockchain network of the digital asset and/or data from a native blockchain network of a different digital asset. When the trade execution threshold engine 111 determines the risk score of the digital asset to be above a predetermined threshold, the trade execution threshold engine 111 may authorize the transaction and send the authorized transaction to a connector 120 that can initiate the transaction on the corresponding blockchain network from among the block-chain networks 130-160 …”).
Gaur discloses a framework for demaraction of digital assets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a framework for demaraction of digital assets, as in Gaur, to improve and/or enhance the technology of stabilizing digital currency, as in Allen, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a framework for querying a blockchain ledger, which stores machine learning (artificial intelligence) data associated with a digital asset, in determining whether to execute the transaction with the digital asset based on one or more additional data attributes of the digital asset queried from the digital asset, in order to provide stabilization of the digital assets in making them a reliable currency for users in the system of stabilizing digital currency of Allen.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200202311 A1), herein referred to as Allen, and in further view of Arvanaghi et al (U. S. Patent No. 10929842 B1), herein referred to as Arvanaghi.
Regarding claim 21, Allen discloses the limitations of claim 16. Allen does not specifically disclose, however, Arvanaghi discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of making a report to the user before the restriction is performed (FIG. 6, items S4726, S4728; C/L 41/5-21, “ … In a step S4726, the exchange computer system may electronically authorize use of the fiat funding account and/or request a funding transfer … the exchange computer system may provide an electronic notification, e.g., via email, via a website, and/or via a mobile phone application (e.g., via a push notification), to name a few, that the fiat funding account is authorized for use with the exchange. A customer may electronically initiate a transaction, e.g., through an exchange-provided user interface or user electronic device operatively connected to the exchange or an application programming interface (API), to name a few, to transfer funds to the exchange. In a step S4728, the exchange computer system may receive an electronic notification indicating that funds were received, e.g., in an exchange bank account at a partner bank, from the customer fiat funding account …”; C/L 44/49-61, “ … An exchange can also include a trade settlement system. A customer service system can include a trade dispute resolution interface system and a customer account management assistance system. A customer reporting system can include a gain and loss reporting system and a transaction history system. A fraud analysis system can monitor transactions to detect fraudulent and/or unauthorized transactions. The exchange can also include a SVCoin system, which may comprise a purchase system, redemption system, and a dividend payment system … a SVCoin system is included to allow users to purchase and redeem stable value coins using fiat currency and/or other digital assets …”).
Arvanaghi discloses depositing and withdrawing stable value digital assets in exchange for fiat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include depositing and withdrawing stable value digital assets in exchange for fiat, as in Arvanaghi, to improve and/or enhance the technology of stabilizing digital currency, as in Allen, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and method for depositing and withdrawing stable value digital assets tied to an underlying blockchain in exchange for fiat, in order to provide stabilization of the digital assets in making them a reliable currency for users in the system of stabilizing digital currency of Allen.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200202311 A1), herein referred to as Allen, in further view of Dale et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140180897 A1), herein referred to as Dale, and in further view of Gaur et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230092436 A1), herein referred to as Gaur.
Regarding claim 21, Allen discloses the limitations of claim 16. Allen does not specifically disclose, however, Dale discloses the information processing method according to claim 16 causing a computer to execute the processing of:
acquiring a rank defined by an acquisition history (para 124, “… The trading terminals have trade execution graphical user interfaces (GUI) or (Application Programming Interfaces (API). The trade execution GUI or API preferably performs exemplary functions and capabilities that include the ability to receive information concerning trade orders (bids and offers) that are broadcasted to eligible liquidity providers and consumers, including order price, order amount, order time, order rank or position, and order holding time holding time for resting orders. A GUI or API for order entry using the systems and methods described above also would include functions for modifying or canceling orders and the ability to receive messages concerning offer holding periods, execution and cancellation of orders, and compliance with execution auction system rules. These functions can be arranged in a multitude of ways. The order entry screen can be customized with regard to type of data presented or the order in which the data is presented to suit an individual trader's needs according to methods known to those skilled in the art as well as those that have not been invented yet …”) or a holding period of the crypto assets for the user; and …
Dale discloses multi-currency trading. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include multi-currency trading, as in Dale, to improve and/or enhance the technology of stabilizing digital currency, as in Allen, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and method for offering and trading financial instruments, such as digital assets, in a number of different currencies to overcome the disadvantages of severely limiting the number of assets available for trading on a foreign exchange operating in a single currency environment, and of avoiding the risk to an importer buying goods priced in foreign currency that the foreign currency will appreciate and make the local currency cost greater than expected, thus making them a reliable currency for users in the system of stabilizing digital currency of Allen.
Allen and Dale do not specifically disclose, however, Gaur discloses easing a restriction on the user based on an acquired rank (para 48, “… the trade execution threshold engine 111 may determine a risk score of the digital asset based on the attributes of the digital asset that are queried from the blockchain networks 130-160, including data from a native blockchain network of the digital asset and/or data from a native blockchain network of a different digital asset. When the trade execution threshold engine 111 determines the risk score of the digital asset to be above a predetermined threshold, the trade execution threshold engine 111 may authorize the transaction and send the authorized transaction to a connector 120 that can initiate the transaction on the corresponding blockchain network from among the block-chain networks 130-160 …”).
Gaur discloses a framework for demaraction of digital assets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a framework for demaraction of digital assets, as in Gaur; and to include multi-currency trading, as in Dale, to improve and/or enhance the technology of stabilizing digital currency, as in Allen, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a framework for querying a blockchain ledger, which stores machine learning (artificial intelligence) data associated with a digital asset, in determining whether to execute the transaction with the digital asset based on order rank or position and/or the order in which the data is presented to suit an individual traders needs of the digital assets in making them a reliable currency for users in the system of stabilizing digital currency of Allen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
James et al (U. S. Patent No. 11475442 B1) – System, Method And Program Product For Modifying A Supply Of Stable Value Digital Asset Tokens
James discloses a method, system and program product for modifying a supply of stable value digital asset tokens tied to a blockchain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights