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 .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) 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.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
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).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for non-custodial peer-to-peer lending, comprising:
providing, by a computing device, an online loan service, receiving, by the computing device, a request from a user for a collateral loan to be facilitated by the online loan service,
modifying, by the computing device, a digital ledger to include a block comprising details of the loan request;
receiving, by the computing device, at least one offer for the loan request;
modifying, by the computing device, the digital ledger to include a block comprising details of the at least one offer;
performing operations, by the computing device, to start the collateral loan;
obtaining, by the computing device, a collateral token associated with collateral to be used to secure the collateral loan;
modifying, by the computing device, the digital ledger to include a block comprising the collateral token and a smart contract specifying parties and terms of the collateral loan;
providing, by the computing device, a debt token to a borrower of the collateral loan, the debt token configured to allow loan debt to be sold; and
allocating and providing, to each lender of the collateral loan, lender tokens that collectively represent a percentage of the collateral loan that the lender is owed and which are configured to allow loan shares to be sold.
Claim 2 recites: wherein: the digital ledger comprises a cryptographically secure chain of blocks; and
modifying the digital ledger to include a block comprises adding the block to the chain of blocks, the added block comprising a cryptographic hash of a previous block in the chain.
Claim 3 recites: before modifying the digital ledger to include a block comprising the details of the loan request, obtaining, by the computing device, cryptographically signed details of the loan request.
Claim 4 recites: wherein modifying the digital ledger to include a block comprising the details of the loan request comprises modifying the digital ledger to include a borrower identifier, a loan amount, a currency type, an interest rate, and a loan duration.
Claim 5 recites: wherein modifying the digital ledger to include a block comprising the details of the loan request comprises modifying the digital ledger to include collateral value evidence.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the smart contract specifies terms of the collateral loan comprising: debt payment terms, debt-token sale/purchase terms, lender-token sale/purchase terms, debt-token/collateral exchange terms, or lender-token/currency exchange terms.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the collateral token is a non-fungible token associated with a digital file.
Claim 8 recites: prior to modifying the digital ledger to include the block comprising details of the at least one offer, receiving, by the computing device, a selection of the at least one offer by the user.
Claim 9 recites: prior to performing the operations to start the collateral loan, checking, by the computing device, that the selected offers meet at least one criterion of the loan request.
Claim 10 recites: wherein checking that the selected offers meet the at least one criterion of the loan request comprises checking that a time period for offers has not expired.
Claim 11 recites: wherein: the details of the loan request comprise a loan amount and a collateral value; and the method further comprises, prior to performing the operations to start the collateral loan, checking by the computing device, that the loan amount does not exceed the collateral value.
Claim 12 recites: wherein allocating and providing lender tokens comprises: receiving, by the computing device, a user selection of a plurality of offers from a plurality of lenders; and providing, by the computing device, lender tokens to each of the plurality of lenders based on the offer associated with each lender.
Claim 13 recites: receiving, by the computing device, one or more loan repayments; and in response to the one or more loan repayments satisfying a repayment term of the collateral loan: allowing exchange of the debt token for the collateral token; and allowing exchange of lender tokens for currency.
Claim 14 recites: receiving, by the computing device, debt-token purchase information; and modifying, by the computing device, the digital ledger to include a block comprising the debt-token purchase information.
Claim 15 recites: receiving, by the computing device, lender-token purchase information; and modifying, by the computing device, the digital ledger to include a block comprising the lender-token purchase information.
Claim 16 recites: wherein providing the online loan service comprises providing a user interface to receive the request from the user for the collateral loan to be facilitated by the online loan service.
Claim 17 recites: wherein receiving the at least one offer for the loan request comprises receiving a trait-based offer.
In removing the bolded additional elements, it is noted that the remaining limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}(2), such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreement in the form of contracts; legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because they amount to limitations specifying functions:
“receiving, by the computing device, a request from a user for a collateral loan to be facilitated by the online loan service, modifying, by the computing device, a digital ledger to include a block comprising details of the loan request, receiving, by the computing device, at least one offer for the loan request, modifying, by the computing device, the digital ledger to include a block comprising details of the at least one offer, performing operations, by the computing device, to start the collateral loan, obtaining, by the computing device, a collateral token associated with collateral to be used to secure the collateral loan, modifying, by the computing device, the digital ledger to include a block comprising the collateral token and a smart contract specifying parties and terms of the collateral loan, providing, by the computing device, a debt token to a borrower of the collateral loan, the debt token configured to allow loan debt to be sold, and allocating and providing, to each lender of the collateral loan, lender tokens that collectively represent a percentage of the collateral loan that the lender is owed and which are configured to allow loan shares to be sold”.
Step 2A, Prong two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps using a computing device for receiving, obtaining, modifying, performing, and providing merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions.
The claimed computing device is similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of generic computers and hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems.
Performance of a receiving or obtaining step by a computing device amounts to performing steps which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing steps or functions by a computer processor with a memory hardware for performing operations, modifying data, allocating and providing data merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of receiving, obtaining, modifying, allocating and providing, the breadth of the limitations reasonably performing these functions using a generic computing device. processor. These claimed functions are understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more computing device. Consideration of these steps or functions as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of operations. Performance of these steps or functions technologically does present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving or obtaining information by computer hardware amounts to receiving and sending information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving, obtaining, modifying, allocating, providing data, and performing routine and conventional functions.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer or processor.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components for receiving, obtaining, modifying, allocating and providing, thus performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The reliance of a computer or processor to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive concept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“modifying, by the computing device, the digital ledger to include a block comprising the collateral token and a smart contract specifying parties and terms of the collateral loan, providing, by the computing device, a debt token to a borrower of the collateral loan, the debt token configured to allow loan debt to be sold, and allocating and providing, to each lender of the collateral loan, lender tokens that collectively represent a percentage of the collateral loan that the lender is owed and which are configured to allow loan shares to be sold” as recited in independent claim 1.
Ferreira US 11068978 B1 discloses Methods, systems and apparatuses, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, are described herein to management transactions relating to loans and securities via a distributed ledger. The platform may allow for authorized users to create, validate, and monitor payments, contractual terms, and lender/borrower obligations, and may permanently record all validated transactions to the distributed ledger.
Sigler et al US 20210065293 A1 Methods and processes can include disbursement and/or management of loans or other obligations via a distributed digital ledger system. In embodiments, smart contracts may be instantiated to reflect issued loans and to reflect repayment obligations therefor. In one embodiment, a lending entity loans money in the form of fiat currency (or other currency type) to a borrower. As the borrower repays the loan, equivalent payments may be made to a digital wallet that is associated with the smart contract, thereby causing the smart contract to evaluate that particular repayment obligation as satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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 on 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
August 17, 2026
