DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 2/23/2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
An “interoperability service,” in accordance with Claims 1, 9 and 17, is defined as a solution that enables different blockchains to communicate and exchange data or assets seamlessly. These services use various technical mechanisms and protocols, such as bridges and sidechains, to allow for things like transferring a token from one chain to another. An interoperability service in blockchain is the software and protocols that enable different blockchain networks to communicate and exchange data and assets.
Step 1: Do the Claims Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 9 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 17 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1 , 9 and 17 recite receiving, on a primary permissioned blockchain-based network and by a model registry smart contract, a plurality of template portfolio models for a plurality of investors; receiving, by the primary permissioned blockchain-based network, a deployment of an investor portfolio smart contract for an investor portfolio for an investor; in response to the deployment, linking, by the model registry smart contract, the investor portfolio smart contract to a selected template portfolio model; establishing, by a deposit token smart contract, a tokenized cash balance for the investor; receiving, by the investor portfolio smart contract, the tokenized cash balance; calculating, by a rebalancer module, a subscription order to align the investor portfolio to the selected template portfolio model, wherein the subscription order identifies a fund and an investment amount; sending, by the investor portfolio smart contract, the subscription order to an orchestrator smart contract; routing, by the orchestrator smart contract, the subscription order to a secondary permissioned blockchain-based network via an interoperability service that provides an interface between the primary permissioned blockchain- based network and the secondary permissioned blockchain-based network, wherein the secondary permissioned blockchain-based network is associated with the fund, and the interoperability service translates the subscription order for the secondary permissioned blockchain-based network; receiving, by the orchestrator smart contract, a settlement confirmation for the subscription order from the secondary permissioned blockchain-based network via the interoperability service, wherein the interoperability service translates the settlement confirmation for the primary permissioned blockchain-based network; recording, by the orchestrator smart contract, asset positions in the investor portfolio based on the settlement confirmation; and transferring, by the investor portfolio smart contract, deposit tokens to a fund manager address for the fund on the primary permissioned blockchain-based network. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk and settlement. The claims are also commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. The claim limitations are also mental processes, capable of being performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer processors, system, permission blockchain-based network, primary permissioned blockchain-based network, model registry smart contract, investor portfolio smart contract, token smart contract, rebalancer module, orchestrator smart contract, secondary permissioned blockchain-based network, interoperability service, deposit tokens and interface. The additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer processors, system, permission blockchain-based network, primary permissioned blockchain-based network, secondary permissioned blockchain-based network, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of model registry smart contract, investor portfolio smart contract, token smart contract, rebalancer module, orchestrator smart contract, interoperability service, and deposit tokens, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of an interface, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer processors, system, permission blockchain-based network, primary permissioned blockchain-based network, model registry smart contract, investor portfolio smart contract, token smart contract, rebalancer module, orchestrator smart contract, secondary permissioned blockchain-based network, interoperability service, deposit tokens and interface) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain and GUI to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain and GUI to the judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein each template portfolio model comprises a list of funds in the template portfolio model and a percentage of each fund in the template portfolio model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the tokenized cash balance comprises one or more tokens that represent a cash balance of the investor. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the tokens are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the rebalancer module calculates the subscription order in response to the investor portfolio meeting a rebalancing criterion. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the rebalancer module are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the rebalancing criterion comprises an addition of cash into the investor portfolio. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the rebalancing criterion comprises a change in template portfolio model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein the subscription order is signed by a private key by a portfolio manager of the investor portfolio. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of a private key are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites further comprising: submitting, by the orchestrator smart contract, a cash transfer instruction for the subscription order to the deposit token smart contract, wherein the cash transfer instruction ringfences cash from the investor portfolio. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the torchestrator smart contract and deposit smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein each template portfolio model comprises a list of funds in the template portfolio model and a percentage of each fund in the template portfolio model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 11 recites wherein the tokenized cash balance comprises one or more tokens that represent a cash balance of the investor. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and the additional elements of the tokens are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein the subscription order is calculated in response to the investor portfolio meeting a rebalancing criterion. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the rebalancing criterion comprises an addition of cash into the investor portfolio. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein the rebalancing criterion comprises a change in template portfolio model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein the subscription order is signed by a private key by a portfolio manager of the investor portfolio. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and the additional elements of a private key are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 16 recites submitting a cash transfer instruction for the subscription order to the deposit token smart contract, wherein the cash transfer instruction ringfences cash from the investor portfolio. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and the additional elements of the orchestrator smart contract and deposit smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the rebalancer module is configured to calculate the subscription order in response to the investor portfolio meeting a rebalancing criterion. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 17, and the additional elements of the rebalancer module are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 17 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the rebalancing criterion comprises an addition of cash into the investor portfolio or a change in template portfolio model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 17, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Claim 20 recites wherein the orchestrator smart contract is configured to submit a cash transfer instruction for the subscription order to the deposit token smart contract, wherein the cash transfer instruction ringfences cash from the investor portfolio. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 17, and the additional elements of the orchestrator smart contract and deposit smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the use of the interoperability service integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by enabling the two permissioned blockchain networks to communicate with each other (Applicant arguments, pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. 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. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
The currently recited blockchain, with use of different smart contracts and deposit tokens is generic and conventional, and the claims do not recite technological implementation details. Instead, the claims recite no more than the conceptual idea of using a block chain and smart contracts for storage, and a deposit token to fund for transaction. When the claims are analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, they are “purely conventional” and ordinary. The claims do not include features that improve the underlining blockchain technology, but rather, use the technology to perform abstract idea.
See also Ex parte McCann, No. 2021-003397, where the PTAB examined claim 1 of the application in dispute, and found it directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and legal interaction of managing commercial payment transactions by advising one to process payments with an available payment instrument and post the payment to a ledger, without significantly more.” Id. at 20.
Examiner notes, without regard to the specification, that it might behoove the Applicant to recite more detail regarding the interface between the two blockchains. Applicant recites translating the order, but might recite more information about the interface and the technology that may be used to allow the interface to occur.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Johnson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights