DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the claims filed 03/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application KR10-2024-0045254 under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) is acknowledged and granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/14/2025 and 01/12/2026 have been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too short (44 words) to describe the disclosure sufficiently See MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 6-10, 12-15, and 20 use the term “one confidence information provision processor”, “information collection processor”, “a user processor”, “a transaction processor”, “a first processor”, “a second processor”, and “a third processor” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the Specification. Paragraph [0030] states the use of a computer which are known to have processors. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner takes the position that each “processor” is a computer processor executing code.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 and any claims which depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the claim limitation “allowing an information collection processor to collect price information of digital asset exchange from a confidence information provision processor and store the collected actual price information of the digital asset exchange”. It is unclear from phrase “allowing an information collection processor” if the functional limitation “to collect price information of digital asset exchange from a confidence information provision processor and store the collected actual price information of the digital asset exchange” must occur for infringement of the claims. For example, are the boundaries of the claims infringed if the information collection processor is connected to a network and capable of (allowed to) collecting price information of digital asset exchange from a confidence information provision processor and storing the collected actual price information of the digital asset exchange, or does the collecting and storing steps actually have to occur for infringement of the claims. As such, the cited claims are indefinite.
Claim 7 and any claims which depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the claim limitation “allowing a user processor to acquire the actual price information of the digital asset exchange from the information collection processor in order to require the price information of transaction of a digital asset and submit the transaction required of the digital asset and the price information of the digital asset exchange together to a transaction processor”. It is unclear from phrase “allowing a user processor” if the functional limitation “to acquire the actual price information of the digital asset exchange from the information collection processor in order to require the price information of transaction of a digital asset and submit the transaction required of the digital asset and the price information of the digital asset exchange together to a transaction processor” must occur for infringement of the claims. For example, are the boundaries of the claims infringed if the information collection processor is connected to a network and capable of (allowed to) collecting price information of digital asset exchange from a confidence information provision processor and storing the collected actual price information of the digital asset exchange, or does the collecting and storing steps actually have to occur for infringement of the claims. As such, the cited claims are indefinite.
Claim 10 and any claims which depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims 10 recites the structural element "the digital signature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this structural element in these claims. As such, the cited claims are indefinite.
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 an abstract idea of asset transactions without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system, and independent claim 7 and 12 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A digital asset transaction system comprising: a verification unit configured to input information of a block including an asset, for which a transaction request is performed, price information for exchanging the asset, a timestamp, and a digital signature, and perform verification of the digital signature; an update unit configured to update the latest information on the current time of the asset by using the information contained in the information of the block; and an impermanent loss measurement unit configured to measure an impermanent loss corresponding to a delay time, which is a difference between the delay time corresponding to the timestemp and the current time, by using the information of the block output from the verification unit, and configured to determine whether to perform a transaction of the asset in response to the transaction request by using the measured impermanent loss”.
Claim 7 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A digital asset transaction method comprising: allowing an information collection processor to collect price information of digital asset exchange from a confidence information provision processor and store the collected actual price information of the digital asset exchange; allowing a user processor to acquire the actual price information of the digital asset exchange from the information collection processor in order to require the price information of transaction of a digital asset and submit the transaction required of the digital asset and the price information of the digital asset exchange together to a transaction processor; and determining whether to perform the transaction by referring an impermanent loss”.
Claim 12 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A digital asset transaction method comprising: operating by at least one first processor configured to collect information of a digital asset, at least one second processor configured to perform a transaction request of the digital asset, and at least one third processor configured to perform the transaction of the digital asset according to the information and the transaction request, wherein the first processor is configured to: collect price information of reliable asset exchange for the digital asset; store the price information of the asset exchange; and collect new information in response to changes in the price information of the asset exchange, wherein the second processor is configured to: obtain the price information of the asset exchange from the first processor; request the transaction of the digital asset to the third processor; and submit the price information of the asset exchange to the third processor when requesting the transaction of the digital asset, wherein the third processor is configured to: calculate an impermanent loss using the price information of the asset exchange; and determine whether to transact the digital asset in response to the transaction request by referring to the impermanent loss”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Asset transactions is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: digital; system; a verification unit; an update unit; an impermanent loss measurement unit; an information collection processor; a user processor; a transaction processor; at least one first processor; at least one second processor; at least one third processor. However, the specification description of the additional elements digital (software); system; a verification unit ([0027] software); an update unit ([0027] software); an impermanent loss measurement unit ([0027] software); an information collection processor (a computer processor executing code); a user processor (a computer processor executing code); a transaction processor (a computer processor executing code); at least one first processor (a computer processor executing code); at least one second processor (a computer processor executing code); at least one third processor (a computer processor executing code);
([0058]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8-11, and 13-20 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 3, 6, and 15, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
a rejection sequence unit (claim 3);
an execution sequence unit (claim 3);
at least one confidence information provision processor (claim 6).
However, the specification description of the additional elements a rejection sequence unit (a computer processor executing code); an execution sequence unit (a computer processor executing code); at least one confidence information provision processor (a computer processor executing code) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed toward non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a judicial exception (various “units” interpreted as software based on paragraph [0027]) without the use of a physical medium. Therefore, the claim lacks the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. Descriptive material (software) can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." Both types of "descriptive material" are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se., 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Merely claiming nonfunctional descriptive material, i.e., abstract ideas, stored on a computer-readable medium, in a computer, or on an electromagnetic carrier signal, do not make it statutory. Note: When amending the claim to overcome this rejection the recited physical device which stores the software should recite the non-transitory embodiment of the application.
Prior Art
Claims 6-20 overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Specifically, the claim involving the structural elements of “one confidence information provision processor”, “information collection processor”, “a user processor”, “a transaction processor”, “a first processor”, “a second processor”, and “a third processor” cannot be properly mapped to the closest prior art combination of Falkenstein (PGPub Document No. 20240144370) in view of Boo (PGPub Document No. 20240144370). Paragraph [0112] of Falkenstein states that “The term "data processing apparatus" encompasses all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers…”. However, there is no explicit mapping that can be made between various claimed processors and the broad description of processors within the prior art. Here it is noted that the claimed processors do not have antecedent basis within the specification. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenstein (PGPub Document No. 20240144370) in view of Boo (PGPub Document No. 20240144370).
As per claim 1, Falkenstein teaches a digital asset transaction system ([Figure 1] [Abstract] [0006] smart contract system) comprising: a verification unit configured to input information of a block including an asset, for which a transaction request is performed, price information for exchanging the asset ([0015] “…the entity 102c generates the smart contract 114 and provides the smart contract 114 to the blockchain 108-e.g., in a transaction. Entity 110 represents a processing node configured to process the smart contract 114. The processing node 110 can be one of multiple processing nodes used in the environment 100. In some cases, different processing devices generate or process the smart contract. In general, one or more of the entities 102a-c, the RPC node 104, or entity 110 can be configured to process the smart contract 114. The entities 102a-c, the RPC node 104, and the entity 110, can include one or more computers configured to perform operations described in this document “[0016] “…Requests can be processed by one or more entities of the environment 100, either simultaneously or asynchronously with the processing of the entity…” [0022] “requested transfer or trade …”), a timestamp (initial time [0021]) ; an update unit configured to update the latest information on the current time of the asset by using the information contained in the information of the block ([0021] “the identifying sub engine 122 can identify one or more accounts of the request A 116. The identifying sub engine 122 can obtain information from the blockchain 108 included in the chain data 118. The chain data 118 can include request data or state data of the smart contract 114---e.g., included in each block subsequent to the block including the initial transaction of the smart contract” [0041] “…current token quantities…” [0050] “…price discovery…”); and an impermanent loss measurement unit configured to measure an impermanent loss corresponding to a delay time, which is a difference between the delay time corresponding to the timestemp and the current time, by using the information of the block output from the verification unit, and configured to determine whether to perform a transaction of the asset in response to the transaction request by using the measured impermanent loss ([0017] “In some implementations, the smart contract 114 is generated to help eliminate impermanent loss (IL) for liquidity providers (LPs) in the AMM of the environment 100. For example, the smart contract 114 can include one or more specific rules to improve the AMM” [0040-0048] “…Where IL represents the difference in the value of the initial pair of token quantities {USD,n,,, ETH,nit} to the value of the LP's current token quantities, {USD,, ETH,}, at the current price of ETH, p” [0070] [0073] [0080] “…restrictions…” [0087] “Net token restriction can be included in the smart contract 114 to prevent a subset of LPs from creating IL…token being not too much above (or below) their initial net token position when they buy (or sell)…” [0088] “Timing restrictions to prevent short-term LPs from creating IL…” ).
Falkenstein does not teach a digital signature, and perform verification of the digital signature.
Boo teaches a digital signature, and perform verification of the digital signature ([Abstract] “…the system first allows static blockchain operation characteristics to be verified, reducing uncertainty related to the cost of the blockchain operation (e.g., due to impermanent loss and continually changing network congestion). …” [0047] “As shown in FIG. 2, one or more user devices may include a private key (e.g. , key 212) and/or digital signature… the digital signature may be used to verify the authenticity of blockchain operations…” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the use of digital signature verification as found in Boo with the smart contracts of Falkenstein in order to prove to every node in the system that it is authorized to conduct the blockchain operations. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2,
Falkenstein teaches the digital asset transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the transaction request, in which a user requests the transaction, is transmitted to the verification unit together with the information of the block ([0015] “…the remote procedure call (RPC) node 104 as an interface. The RPC node 104 can be one of multiple nodes used as an interface to the blockchain …” “[0016] “…Requests can be processed by one or more entities of the environment 100, either simultaneously or asynchronously with the processing of the entity…” [0022] “requested transfer or trade …The device 102c can generate the smart contract 114 using a smart contract generation engine 112. The smart contract generation engine 112 can operate on one or more computers---e.g., the device 102c. The smart contract generation engine 112 can generate the smart contract 114 configured to process requests…”).
As per claim 3,
Falkenstein teaches the digital asset transaction system according to claim 1, further comprising: a rejection sequence unit configured to reject the transaction request in at least one of a case, in which the verification of the digital signature fails in the verification unit, or a case, in which the impermanent loss measured in the impermanent loss measurement unit exceeds a maximum allowable value of the impermanent loss ([0087] “Net token restriction can be included in the smart contract 114 to prevent a subset of LPs from creating IL…token being not too much above (or below) their initial net token position when they buy (or sell)…” [0088] “Timing restrictions to prevent short-term LPs from creating IL…within an elapsed time threshold, remove liquidity or become a non-LP trader.”);
the impermanent loss measured in the impermanent loss measurement unit does not exceed the maximum allowable value of impermanent loss ([0017] “In some implementations, the smart contract 114 is generated to help eliminate impermanent loss (IL) for liquidity providers (LPs) in the AMM of the environment 100. For example, the smart contract 114 can include one or more specific rules to improve the AMM” [0040-0048] “…Where IL represents the difference in the value of the initial pair of token quantities {USD,n,,, ETH,nit} to the value of the LP's current token quantities, {USD,, ETH,}, at the current price of ETH, p” [0070] [0073] [0080] “…restrictions…” [0087] “Net token restriction can be included in the smart contract 114 to prevent a subset of LPs from creating IL…token being not too much above (or below) their initial net token position when they buy (or sell)…” [0088] “Timing restrictions to prevent short-term LPs from creating IL…within an elapsed time threshold,
remove liquidity or become a non-LP trader…” ).
Falkenstein does not teach the remaining claim limits.
Boo teaches an execution sequence unit configured to execute the transaction request when it is satisfied that the digital signature is verified in the verification unit ([0047] [0104] “…The system may perform the blockchain operation based on the first digital signature and the user address…”).
As per claim 4,
Falkenstein teaches the digital asset transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the impermanent loss measurement unit is configured to measure the impermanent loss that occurs when executing the transaction request using the latest information output from the update unit ([0040-0048] “…Where IL represents the difference in the value of the initial pair of token quantities {USD,n,,, ETH,nit} to the value of the LP's current token quantities, {USD,, ETH,}, at the current price of ETH, p” [0070] [0073] [0080] “…restrictions…”).
As per claim 5,
Falkenstein teaches the digital asset transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the determination of whether to perform the transaction of the asset comprises satisfaction of at least one of a case, in which as the maximum allowable impermanent loss increases, an allowable range for the delay time increases, a case, in which the larger a confidence interval, the smaller the allowable range of the delay time, a case in which as a standard deviation increases, the allowable range of the delay time decreases, or a case in which the larger a price of the asset, the greater the allowable range of the delay time ([0087] “Net token restriction can be included in the smart contract 114 to prevent a subset of LPs from creating IL…token being not too much above (or below) their initial net token position when they buy (or sell)…” [0088] “Timing restrictions to prevent short-term LPs from creating IL…within an elapsed time threshold, remove liquidity or become a non-LP trader.” ).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
05/16/2026
Prosecution Insights