DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information disclosure Statement(s) filed 6/20/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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.
3. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).-see MPEP §2106.03 II.
It is recommended that the preamble recite for example, “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:”
4. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of obtain first and second computing entity real-time information regarding a data interaction between a first computing entity of the system digital asset-based data interaction system and a second computing entity of the system digital asset-based data interaction system, wherein the data interaction includes the first computing entity providing data to the second computing entity, and wherein processing the data interaction includes executing a real-time data interaction process and a nonreal-time data interaction process; instruct to lock an amount of system digital assets to back the data interaction, store system digital assets in a stake pool to back one or more data interactions …; and when the data interaction is successful: obtain a data interaction fee from one or more of the first and second computing entities; convert the data interaction fee to system digital assets; and provide the system digital assets to the stake pool, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for data interactions which are collaterally backed by digital assets which is a commercial interaction. The mere nominal recitation of a first memory element that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a data interaction computing entity of a system digital asset-based data interaction system, causes the data interaction computing entity to perform the claimed functions, and second and staking computing entities do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— a first memory element that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a data interaction computing entity of a system digital asset-based data interaction system, causes the data interaction computing entity to perform the claimed functions, and computing entities. The memory element, computing entity of a system digital asset based data interaction system and computing entities are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic memory element that stores operational instructions that when executed by a data interaction computing entity of a system digital asset-based data interaction system, causes the data interaction computing entity to obtain information regarding a data interaction, wherein the data interaction includes providing data …; instruct a data interaction backing computing entity to lock an amount of system digital assets to back the data interaction…; one or more staking computing entities storing system digital assets in a stake pool to back one or more data interactions; and when data interaction is successful: obtain data interaction fee, convert fee to system digital assets, and provide digital assets to the stake pool) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic memory element that stores operational instructions that when executed by a data interaction computing entity of a system digital asset-based data interaction system, causes the data interaction computing entity to perform the claimed functions and computing entities, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-8 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim 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. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-8 is/are ineligible.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,909,860 (So et al.)-cited for systems and methods for loaning digital assets and for depositing, holding and/or distributing collateral as a token in the form of digital assets on an underlying blockchain.
US 2021/0065302 (Leshner et al.)-cited for systems and methods for pooling and transferring digital assets including detecting a transaction event for a blockchain ledger, the blockchain ledger including transaction records for a pool of digital assets and accounts collectively owning the digital assets.
US 2018/0075421 (Serrano et al.)-cited for loan processing service utilizing a distributed ledger digital asset as collateral.
US 11,164,164 (Minor)-cited for system and method for converting cryptocurrency to virtual assets whose value is substantiated by a reserve of assets.
US 2018/0365764 (Nelson)-cited for solo-party collateralized liquidity including locking as asset in a blockchain-based database in communication with a processor, establishing a locked asset value for the asset and preventing exchange of the asset by an asset owner, and recording the loan value in the blockchain-based database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights