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 the Application
This is a non-final rejection in response to a submission relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 19/177,631, filed on April 13, 2025. This is a Division of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/751,370, filed on May 23, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,614,159. Claims 1 -12 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted by Applicant on May 22, 2025, June 11, 2025 and November 29, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
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 1-12 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system. Claims 8-12 are directed to a method. Therefore, on its face, each of the claims is directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites read multiple instances of difficulty and corresponding time data from multiple blocks, respectively, of a cryptocurrency blockchain; determine and record time lapses between changes in instances of difficulty over a period of time; and provide guidance to a trader to buy or sell a financial instrument based at least in part on an index of the recorded time lapses between changes in the instances of difficulty. The abstract idea recites providing guidance to a trader to buy or sell a financial instrument based at least in part on an index of the recorded time lapses between changes in multiple instances of difficulty and corresponding time data from multiple blocks, respectively, of a cryptocurrency blockchain which is commercial interactions including contracts, legal obligations and business relations and fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk which fall within “Certain methods of organizing human activity” under MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea also recites mathematical concepts and a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Claim 1 recites a computer system configured to execute code and a blockchain. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not provide technical improvements such as to the functioning of a computer or to technology or to a technical field and thus they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claim 2 (at least one of the multiple instances of difficulty and corresponding time data is read from a server node that services the blockchain), Claim 3 (at least one of the multiple instances of difficulty and corresponding time data is read from a block explorer that services the blockchain), Claim 4 (the period of time is 24 hours), Claim 5 (the period of time is 1 week), Claim 6 (the period of time is 2 weeks), Claim 7 (the period of time is 1 month), Claim 8 (the financial instrument comprises a futures contract), Claim 9 (the financial instrument comprises a cash settled futures contract), Claim 10 (the financial instrument comprises the cryptocurrency), Claim 11 (each of the multiple instances of difficulty (Dx to Dy) are calculated as a period function of a global hashrate of the cryptocurrency) and Claim 12 (the computing system is in communication with a clearinghouse processor that executes orders for the financial instrument) contain additional elements (which are underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and add specificity to the abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
As such, Claims 1 - 12 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is directed to a system or method. On the one hand, the claim is directed to a “computer system” configured to execute code. On the other hand, all of the limitations after the preamble describe method steps that do not appear to have any claimed connection to the structure of the system. For example, the claim does not indicate that memory stores code that when executed, causes a processor to perform the recited steps. This renders Claim 1 (and its dependents, Claims 2-12) indefinite. (See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claims 8-10 and 12 recite in pertinent part “The method of claim 1”. Claim 11 recites in pertinent part “The method of claim 10”. Insofar as independent Claim 1 recites “a computer system”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations, which renders Claims 8-12 indefinite.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Claims 8-10 and 12 will be examined as if they recite “The computer system of claim 1” and Claim 11 will be examined as if it recites “The computer system of claim 10”.
No Prior Art Rejection
A search of the prior art had not identified any references that teach, either individually or in combination, the elements of the claims.
The closest prior art of record US 2017/0103458 A1, Pierce et al., discloses systems and methods make derivatives contracts based on an underlying virtual currency available for trading. Certain derivatives contracts have a settlement value based on the difficulty factor associated with generating the selected virtual currency. Other disclosed derivatives contracts have a settlement value based on the expected yield that a virtual currency miner can expect to generate using a particular computer configuration. The contracts can be used, for exan1ple, by virtual currency miners to hedge certain risks associated with mining virtual currency. Pierce does not use time-weighted index averages of mining difficulty to calculate the index value at any given time and decrease counterparty settlement risk.
The closest prior art of record US 10,949,922 B2, Pierce et al., discloses systems and methods make derivatives contracts based on an underlying virtual currency available for trading. Certain derivatives contracts have a settlement value based on the transaction fees associated with recording and/or performing transactions for the selected virtual currency. The contracts can be used, for example, by virtual currency miners against certain risks associated with mining virtual currency.
The closest prior art of record US 2021/0174442 A1, Trudeau et al., discloses a financial instrument trading system which allows for the establishment and trading of cryptographic difficulty-based financial instruments using physical delivery of the underlying cryptocurrency. The cryptographic difficulty-based financial instruments are based on an expected value including the predetermined reward per block of cryptocurrency, a predetermined hashrate, a predetermined financial instrument length, the predetermined nonce value of the underlying cryptocurrency, and the current difficulty level employed by the underlying cryptocurrency, and may vary as the difficulty level varies. The clearinghouse settlement system calculates daily variation margin in valuation of the financial instrument and provides for physical delivery of the underlying cryptocurrency to satisfy the variation margin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
