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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/29/2025 has been entered.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 9 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites electronically receiving, asset information regarding asset characteristics of an asset; responsive to electronically receiving the asset information, automatically: fractionalizing interests in the asset into and across a plurality of representative [assets] in view of the asset characteristics, the plurality of representative [assets] including a [asset]; and populating an electronic capitalization table with ownership information indicating entity fractional ownership interests in the asset in view of the plurality of representative digital assets; subsequent to populating the electronic capitalization table, accessing a portion of the ownership information from the electronic capitalization table indicating that a first entity owns the [asset]; electronically receiving an exchange proposal proposing a second entity purchase an interest in an asset from a first entity utilizing a first currency type as payment; responsive to receiving the exchange proposal, formulating [one or more contracts] defining one or more transactions transferring a token, representing the interest in the asset, from the first entity to the second entity in exchange for trade proceeds in a second currency type to the first entity; settling the one or more transactions according to the [one or more contracts] capturing transaction data documenting the transaction, including: transferring the token from a [wallet] of the first entity to [wallet] of the seconding entity; and transferring the trade proceeds from the second entity to the first entity, including: accessing an amount of currency in the first currency type from [wallet] of the second entity; automatically selecting a stablecoin from among a plurality of stablecoins by: accessing real-time stability data for each of the plurality of stablcoins from multiple external courses; calculating a stability score for each stablecoin based on price volatility over a predetermined time period and reference asset backing ratio; selecting the stablecoin having a highest stability score that exceeds a predetermined stability threshold; converting the first currency type to an equal valued amount of stablecoin; subsequent to converting the first currency type to an equal valued amount of stablecoin within a predetermined time frame to minimize currency volatility exposure; subsequent to converting the first currency type to an equal valued amount of stablecoin, converting the amount of stablecoin to an equal valued amount of currency in the second currency type within the predetermined time frame; and transferring the amount of currency in the second currency type to a [wallet] of the first entity; accessing transaction data indicative of completing the transaction; and subsequent and in response to settling the one or more transactions, electronically and automatically: updating fractional ownership interests in the asset within the electronic capitalization table, including indicating the second entity’s ownership of the [asset], in view of the [asset] transfer and based on the transaction data; and digitally preserving evidence of settlement in a [private ledger] and a [public ledger], including: recording the transaction data in the [private ledger]; and semi-redundantly synchronizing the [public ledger] with the [private ledger] including recording at least a subset of the transaction data in the [public ledger] while automatically removing personally identifiable information from the subset of transaction data recorded in the public immutable ledger. 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 commercial interactions, more specifically, sales activities and business relations. Also, the limitations are managing interactions between people, more specifically following instructions. 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).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of computer, smart contract, digital wallet, currency wallet, private mutable ledger, digital asset, and public mutable ledger. The additional elements of a computer, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of smart contract, digital wallet, currency wallet, private mutable ledger, digital asset, and public mutable ledger 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 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).
Next, the claims are 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 (computer, smart contract, digital wallet, currency wallet, private mutable ledger, digital asset, and public mutable ledger) 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 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 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 the first currency type comprises a crypto currency and the second currency type comprises a fiat currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the first currency type comprises a fiat currency and the second currency type comprises a crypto currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the first currency type comprises a first crypto currency and the second currency type comprises a different second crypto currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the equal valued amount of stablecoin comprises stablecoin of a first stablecoin type; and wherein one of the first currency type or the second currency type is a different second stablecoin type. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites selecting the stablecoin from among a plurality of stablecoins based on stability characteristics of the stablecoin relative to stability characteristics of one or more other stablecoins in the plurality of stablecoins. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein transferring the trade proceeds from the second entity to the first entity comprises: after converting the first currency type to an equal valued amount of stablecoin, depositing the amount of stablecoin to an Alternative Trading System (ATS) stablecoin account; subsequent to depositing the amount of stable coin to Alternative Trading System (ATS) stablecoin account and prior to converting the amount of stablecoin to an equal valued amount of the second currency, withdrawing the amount of stablecoin from the Alternative Trading System (ATS) stablecoin account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the alternative trading system (ATS) 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 8 recites wherein capturing transaction data comprises capturing the first currency type, the amount of currency in the first currency type, the second currency type, and the amount of currency in the second currency type; wherein recording the transaction data in the private mutable ledger comprises recording the first currency type, the amount of currency in the first currency type, the second currency type, and the amount of currency in the second currency type in the private mutable ledger; and wherein semi-redundantly synchronizing the public immutable ledger with the private mutable ledger comprises recording at least a subset of the first currency type, the amount of currency in the first currency type, the second currency type, and the amount of currency in the second currency type in the public immutable ledger. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the private mutable ledger and the public immutable ledger 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 9 recites electronically receive asset information regarding asset characteristics of an asset; responsive to electronically receiving the asset information, automatically: fractionalize interests in the asset into and across a plurality of representative [assets] in view of the asset characteristics, the plurality of representative [assets] including a [asset]; and populate an electronic capitalization table with ownership information indicating entity fractional ownership interests in the asset in view of the plurality of representative [assets]; subsequent to populating the electronic capitalization table, access a portion of the ownership information from the electronic capitalization table indicating that a first entity owns the [asset]; electronically receive an exchange proposal proposing a second entity purchase an interest in an asset from the first entity utilizing a first currency type as payment; responsive to receiving the exchange proposal, formulate a [contract] defining transferring a token, representing the interest in the asset, from the first entity to the second entity in exchange for trade proceeds in a second currency type to the first entity; settle a transaction according to the [contract] capturing transaction data documenting the transaction, including: transfer the token from a [wallet] of the first entity to a [wallet]of the seconding entity; and transfer the trade proceeds from the second entity to the first entity, including: access an amount of currency in the first currency type from [wallet] of the second entity; automatically selecting a stablecoin from among a plurality of stablecoins by: accessing real-time stability data for each of the plurality of stablcoins from multiple external courses; calculating a stability score for each stablecoin based on price volatility over a predetermined time period and reference asset backing ratio; selecting the stablecoin having a highest stability score that exceeds a predetermined stability threshold; convert the first currency type to an equal valued amount of stablecoin within a predetermined time frame to minimize currency volatility exposure; subsequent to converting the first currency type to an equal valued amount of stablecoin, convert the amount of stablecoin to an equal valued amount of currency in the second currency type within the predetermined time frame; and transfer the amount of currency in the second currency type to [wallet] of the first entity; accessing transaction data indicative of completing the transaction; and subsequent and in response to settling the transaction, electronically and automatically: updating fractional ownership interests in the asset within the electronic capitalization table, including indicating the second entity’s ownership of the [asset], in view of the [asset] transfer and based on the transaction data; and digitally preserving evidence of the transaction settlement in a [private ledger] and a [public ledger], including: recording the transaction data in the [private ledger]; and semi-redundantly synchronizing the [public ledger] with the [private ledger] including recording at least a subset of the transaction data in the [public ledger] while automatically removing personally identifiable information from the subset of transaction data recorded in the public immutable ledger. 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 commercial interactions, more specifically, sales activities and business relations. Also, the limitations are managing interactions between people, more specifically following instructions. 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).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of processor, system memory, instructions, smart contract, digital wallet, currency wallet, private mutable ledger, digital asset, and public mutable ledger. The additional elements of a processor, system memory, instructions, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of smart contract, digital wallet, currency wallet, private mutable ledger, digital asset, and public mutable ledger 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 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).
Next, the claims are 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 (processor, system memory, instructions, smart contract, digital wallet, currency wallet, private mutable ledger, digital asset, and public mutable ledger) 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 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 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 10 recites wherein the first currency type comprises a crypto currency and the second currency type comprises a fiat currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 11 recites wherein the first currency type comprises a fiat currency and the second currency type comprises a crypto currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein the first currency type comprises a first crypto currency and the second currency type comprises a different second crypto currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the equal valued amount of stablecoin comprises stablecoin of a first stablecoin type; and wherein one of the first currency type or the second currency type is a different second stablecoin type. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 14 recites further comprising instructions configured to cause the processor to select the stablecoin from among a plurality of stablecoins based on stability characteristics of the stablecoin relative to stability characteristics of one or more other stablecoins in the plurality of stablecoins. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein instructions configured to cause the processor to transfer the trade proceeds from the second entity to the first entity comprise instructions configured to cause the processor to: after converting the first currency type to an equal valued amount of stablecoin, deposit the amount of stablecoin to an Alternative Trading System (ATS) stablecoin account; subsequent to depositing the amount of stable coin to Alternative Trading System (ATS) stablecoin account and prior to converting the amount of stablecoin to an equal valued amount of the second currency, withdraw the amount of stablecoin from the Alternative Trading System (ATS) stablecoin account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and the additional elements of the alternative trading system (ATS) 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 9 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein instructions configured to cause the processor to capture transaction data comprise instructions configured to cause the processor to capture the first currency type, the amount of currency in the first currency type, the second currency type, and the amount of currency in the second currency type; wherein instructions configured to cause the processor to record the transaction data in the private mutable ledger comprise instructions configured to cause the processor to record the first currency type, the amount of currency in the first currency type, the second currency type, and the amount of currency in the second currency type in the private mutable ledger; and wherein instructions configured to cause the processor to semi-redundantly synchronize the public immutable ledger with the private mutable ledger comprise instructions configured to cause the processor to record at least a subset of the first currency type, the amount of currency in the first currency type, the second currency type, and the amount of currency in the second currency type in the public immutable ledger. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and the additional elements of the private mutable ledger and the public immutable ledger 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. 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 commercial interactions, more specifically, sales activities and business relations. Also, the limitations are managing interactions between people, more specifically following instructions. 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. (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the 101 inquiry.”). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original).
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The applicants arguments are alleged improvements to the abstract idea (minimizing currency volatility exposure with timing controls (Applicant argument, pg. 11)), and not towards any technological improvement.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer database elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer database elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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.
Lastly, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve minimizing currency volatility exposure with timing controls, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
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 Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693