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 non-final first office action is in response to the communication filed on 6/27/2025. Claim 1 is currently pending and has been examined below. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 1 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
creating a fractionalized risk pool for a real estate property, the fractionalized risk pool comprising a plurality of asset tokens and an occupancy token
receiving, title information associated with the real estate property;
updating the ledger with information comprising the title information, a timestamp, and a property valuation
receiving a transaction comprising an amount and a user;
determining a real-time equity of the user based on the ledger;
determining an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user; and
updating the ledger based on the approval status.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations recited above describe a process of approving or denying a transaction for a real estate property based on a user’s current equity in the property which is a commercial interaction that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping of abstract idea. Additionally, the limitations also fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Specifically, a human being can mentally (or with pen and paper) create a fractionalized risk pool for a real estate property comprising tokens; receive title information associated with the real estate property; update a ledger with information comprising the title information, a timestamp, and a property valuation; receive a transaction comprising an amount and a user; determining a real-time equity of the user based on the ledger; determine an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user; and update the ledger based on the approval status. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
[the ledger is] a blockchain ledger;
the plurality of asset tokens and the occupancy token issued using a blockchain ledger;
[receiving], over a network, [title information];
[receiving a transaction] via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank; and
transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically:
The limitations [the ledger is] a blockchain ledger and the plurality of asset tokens and the occupancy token issued using blockchain ledger are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At most, specifying that the ledger is a blockchain ledger and issuing asset tokens and the occupancy token “using a blockchain ledger” only recites the idea of a solution (issuing tokens using blockchain) without reciting the steps of performing the solution.
The limitations [receiving], over a network, [title information]; [receiving a transaction] via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank; and transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank are all recited at a high level of generality transmitting and receiving information from a generic bank or credit card network. At this level of generality, these limitations merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., transmitting and receiving data over a network). Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole 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.
The claims 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 than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it); generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; or merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the transmitting and receiving limitations were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Examiner notes these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (transmitting and receiving information over a network) and that transmitting data over a network is well-understood routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner as evidenced by the decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, a conclusion that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20250078049 (“Fakieh”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20200394714 (“Strnad”).
Claim 1
As per claim 1, Fakieh teaches a system comprising:
a processor ([0299] “processor”) configured for:
creating a fractionalized risk pool for a real estate property, the fractionalized risk pool comprising a plurality of asset tokens and an occupancy token, the plurality of asset tokens and the occupancy token issued using blockchain ledger ([0033] “Ownership can be fractionalized across token holders, opening real estate to more investors.” And, [0029] “the tokenization system divides a physical asset, such as a property, into digital tokens that represent ownership of a fraction of the underlying asset.” And, [0002] “execution of asset tokenization.” And, [0097] “the tokenization system divides the property's value into multiple tokens.” And, [0217] “mints tokens on the blockchain representing the total value and the individual usage/ownership shares. The tokens are programmatically assigned to the asset owner's account on the platform.” Examiner interprets the tokens assigned to the property owner as asset tokens. And, [0072] “Over the duration of the lease, the tenant can acquire one or more tokens, such as token 106 a, thereby gaining a portion of ownership in the property.” And, [0084] “Each month, the tenant makes payments for the rental of the property and also for the tokens. The tenant gradually builds equity in the property.” Examiner interprets a token acquired by the tenant as an occupancy token.);
receiving, over a network, title information associated with real estate property ([0214] “model accesses websites or third-party databases to verify such information, such as . . . property title databases.” And, [0050] “submits a digital version of the deed to the tokenization system.” And, [0278] “system maintains a complete record of all these transactions, creating a digital chain of title for the asset.” And, [0285] “database can hold a chain of title for a real estate property. The tokenization system initiates transmission of a message to the government agency database for the recordation of the new ownership to add to the chain of title.”);
updating the blockchain ledger with information comprising the title information, a timestamp, and a property valuation ([0085] “updating the blockchain ledger, which in this case performs actions that record ownership, transactions, and contractual terms, and execute smart contracts for real estate properties.” And, [0111] “update the property's ownership status on the digital ledger.” And, [0259] “transactional data such as minting transactions when new assets are tokenized . . . value . . . timestamps.” And, [0278] “system maintains a complete record of all these transactions, creating a digital chain of title for the asset.” And, [0285] “database can hold a chain of title for a real estate property. The tokenization system initiates transmission of a message to the government agency database for the recordation of the new ownership to add to the chain of title.” And, [0217] “With the total value and share values determined, the system mints tokens on the blockchain representing the total value and the individual usage/ownership shares. The tokens are programmatically assigned to the asset owner's account on the platform.” And, [0275] “submits the digitized asset rights document (such as a deed) to the system, the system records this transaction on the blockchain or in a secure database. This initial record includes the asset holder's identity, the value of the asset.”);
receiving a transaction comprising an amount and a user ([0168] “tokenization system receives the indication of the asset transaction via digital signal or message sent from the asset utilizer's digital wallet or account to the system. The indication includes information about the transaction, such as the amount paid, the number of tokens purchased, and the time of the transaction” and [0169] “receives this indication and processes it to update the records of the asset and the associated tokens. The tokenization system updates the balance of tokens in the asset utilizer's digital wallet, updating the remaining value of the asset, and/or updating the record of payments made by the asset utilizer.” And, [0246] “analyzes key attributes of each payment, such as the source—bank account, wallet, payment processor etc., amount, contextual metadata like tenancy ID, property ID, payment reference IDs.”).
Fakieh does not explicitly teach but STRNAD teaches:
determining a real-time equity of the user based on the blockchain ledger ([0737] “monitoring earned equity levels . . . monitoring parameters such as home valuation in real time.” And, [0594] “query of the housing instrument data blockchain system along with access authorization data to extract relevant information including . . . the level of earned equity “. And, [0311] “available credit can vary in real time along with the value of the home.” And, [0052] “algorithms to calculate the value of home equity.”).
Fakieh does not explicitly teach but STRNAD teaches:
determining an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user ([0597] “a process for approval of an equity adjustment and issuance of a transaction message requesting authorization.” And [0599] “determining whether a minimum level of earned equity will remain after the requested sale of earned equity by the homeowner . . . [a]s part of the assessment, the contract engine computes the amount of equity in percentage (of home value) terms and the corresponding dollar amount based on the house value extracted from the housing instrument data blockchain for the requested sale . . . The contract engine generates an outcome message and sends the message through a transmitting unit to the managing entity website . . . The request outcome message contains request outcome data that includes . . . whether the request was approved or denied.” And, [0518] “determining, through a processing unit of the contract engine, the applicable terms of the purchase or sale and the terms of each offer; and if the sale or purchase is otherwise permissible.”).
Fakieh teaches [receiving a transaction . . . comprising an amount and a user] but does not explicitly teach that the transaction is received via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank as taught by STRNAD (0728] “causing a bank transfer to execute, and updating the blockchain system in relation to an accepted payment offer.” And, [0732] “contract engine, through a transmitting unit, sends the investor buyout . . . message to a receiving unit of a payment engine” and “[t]he payment engine creates a bank transfer from the investor to the account of the EBP equity holder and, through a transmitting unit, generates a payment confirmation message.”).
Fakieh does not explicitly teach but STRNAD teaches:
transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank ([0597] “approval of an equity adjustment and issuance of a transaction message requesting authorization and/or issuance of a transaction message confirming the transaction.” And, [0728] “causing a bank transfer to execute, and updating the blockchain system in relation to an accepted payment offer.” And, [0732] “contract engine, through a transmitting unit, sends the investor buyout . . . message to a receiving unit of a payment engine” and “[t]he payment engine creates a bank transfer from the investor to the account of the EBP equity holder and, through a transmitting unit, generates a payment confirmation message.”).
Fakieh does not explicitly teach but STRNAD teaches:
updating the blockchain ledger based on the approval status ([0728] “causing a bank transfer to execute, and updating the blockchain system in relation to an accepted payment offer.” And, [0059] “writing payment data to and extracting updated data from the blockchain system.” And, [0064] “causing activation of a payment engine to generate and write payment data to the blockchain system.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fakieh to include determining a real-time equity of the user based on the blockchain ledger; determining an approval status of the transaction based on the real-time equity of the user; the transaction is received via at least one of a credit card network or issuing bank; transmitting the approval status to the at least one credit card network or the issuing bank; and updating the blockchain ledger based on the approval status as taught by STRNAD in order to “ensure that the homeowner's maintenance incentives remain intact” (STRNAD [0311]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20210133875 (“Foote”) teaches real estate equity tokens on the blockchain
US Patent Application Publication Number 20200042989 (“Ramadoss”) teaches a smart contract in the form of a cryptocurrency that provides equity participation to an investor in a property such as a homeowner's residential real estate property
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights