Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
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 in reply to the application filed on January 22, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260805 for references purposes only.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 7, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of issuing tokens to represent a gold deposit, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. 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).
Claim 1, representative of claims 8 and 15, includes the following limitations:
Receiving proof of title documentation associated with a gold deposit;
Receiving resource verification documentation, which is compliant with a regulatory standard;
Receiving central bank digital currency integration authorization, which includes authorization parameters;
Calculating a quantity of tokens based on the resource verification documentation and authorization parameters;
Generating a standard unit value for each token, wherein each token represents a fraction of the unmined gold deposit;
Receiving multi-signature authorization from a titleholder and central bank system;
Issuing a quantity of tokens, wherein each token incorporates a smart contract.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
A graphical user interface;
Recording the tokens in a distributed ledger;
Applying a bridge protocol, which enables exchanges between the tokens and the central bank system;
Transferring the tokens to an electronic wallet.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
They add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Note that “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity can include both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as whole. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
They generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of “a graphical user interface” is mere instructions to apply an exception, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of “a graphical user interface” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element of “a graphical user interface” is simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of “recording the tokens in a distributed ledger” and “transferring the tokens to an electronic wallet” are extra solution activity that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. The limitations “recording the tokens in a distributed ledger” and “transferring the tokens to an electronic wallet” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The “recording of data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 and MPEP 2106.05(d). The “transmitting of data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, a conclusion that the limitations “recording the tokens in a distributed ledger” and “transferring the tokens to an electronic wallet” are well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported under Berkheimer.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of a “applying a bridge protocol, which enables exchanges between the tokens and the central bank system” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of “applying a bridge protocol, which enables exchanges between the tokens and the central bank system” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element of “applying a bridge protocol, which enables exchanges between the tokens and the central bank system” is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites parallel validation processes, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 3 recites a multi-signature mechanism to obtain approval, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 recites the type of regulatory standard, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the types of authorization parameters, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites the types of bridge specifications, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites maintaining two types of protocols, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, 772 F.3d 709, 715.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Youb et al. (US 2020/0394652) in view of Frolov et al. (US 2017/0372278).
Claims 1, 8, 15
Youb discloses:
receiving, via a graphical user interface, proof of title documentation (reserve title, see [0164]) associated with an unmined gold deposit (gold mine, see [0088]);
receiving, via the graphical user interface, resource verification documentation (NI 43-101 report, see [0141]) compliant with at least one regulatory standard (e.g. Canadian Institute of Mining, see [0140]) corresponding to the unmined gold deposit;
receiving central bank digital currency (CBDC) integration authorization (Asset Digitization Service Agreement, see [0156]) from a central bank system, wherein the CBDC integration authorization comprises one or more CBDC authorization parameters (proven reserves, see [0160]) associated with token issuance;
calculating, by a processing device, a quantity of distributable tokens (number of tokens, see [0128]) based on the resource verification documentation and the one or more CBDC authorization parameters;
generating a standardized unit value (e.g. 1:5, see [0154]) for each distributable token (token, see [0103-0104]), wherein each distributed ledger token represents a fraction (fractional representation of the asset, see [0101, 0104]) of the unmined gold deposit;
receiving a multi-signature authorization (digital signatures, see [0179]) comprising: a first signature from a titleholder (commodity asset owner, see [0101]) and a second signature from the central bank system (commercial bank, see [0191]);
issuing, based on the quantity of distributable tokens, a quantity of distributed ledger tokens (quantity, see [0101]), wherein each distributed ledger token incorporates a smart contract (smart contract, see [0101, 0123]) that comprises one or more of: a reference to the unmined gold deposit (commodity asset description, quantity location, see [0101]), the standardized unit value, one or more token holder rights, or one or more CBDC bridge specifications;
recording the issuing of the distributed ledger tokens in a distributed ledger (distributed ledger, see [0121]) maintained across a network of validating nodes (member nodes, see [0179]);
applying a CBDC bridge protocol that enables exchanges between the distributed ledger tokens and a set of tokens associated with the central bank system (commercial bank, see [0191]).
Youb does not disclose:
A graphical user interface;
Transferring… titleholder.
Frolov teaches:
a graphical user interface (interface, see [0114]);
transferring the distributed ledger tokens to an electronic wallet (wallet, see [0277]) associated with the titleholder.
Youb discloses receiving proof of title documentation, receiving resource verification documentation, receiving central bank integration authorization, calculating a quantity of distributable tokens, generating a standardized unit value for each token, receiving a multi-signature authorization, issuing a quantity of distributed ledger tokens, recording the tokens in a ledger, and applying a bridge protocol. Youb does not disclose a graphical user interface and transferring tokens to a wallet, but Frolov does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method for creating commodity assets from unrefined commodity reserves utilizing blockchain and distributed ledger technology with the graphical user interface and transferring tokens of Frolov because 1) a need exists for converting an illiquid asset, which represents demonstrable and recognized wealth, into a liquid resource without requiring the illiquid asset itself to be monetized (see Youb [0067]); and 2) a need exists for a fully functional electronic currency free from the disadvantages characteristic of existing cryptocurrencies (see Frolov [0024]). Having a graphical user interface and transferring tokens is useful for converting an illiquid asset into a liquid resource.
Claims 2, 9, 16
Furthermore, Youb discloses:
the CBDC bridge protocol implements a dual-chain consensus protocol that initiates parallel validation processes (proven reserves of gold have been validated, see [0154]) on the network of validating nodes and the central bank system.
Claims 3, 10, 17
Furthermore, Youb discloses:
the CBDC bridge protocol employs a multi-signature mechanism that obtains cryptographic approval from multiple validators (trusted member nodes, see [0179]) before executing an exchange between the distributed ledger tokens and the set of tokens associated with the central bank system.
Claims 4, 11, 18
Furthermore, Youb discloses:
the at least one regulatory standard comprises one or more of NI 43-101 (NI 43-101, see [0140]) or S-K 1300 standards.
Claims 5, 12, 19
Furthermore, Youb discloses:
the one or more CBDC authorization parameters comprise one or more of token backing ratios, transfer restrictions, or central bank reserve requirements (proven reserves, see [0160]).
Claims 6, 13, 20
Furthermore, Frolov teaches:
the one or more CBDC bridge specifications comprise one or more of: interfaces for token transfers between the distributed ledger tokens and the set of tokens associated with the central bank system, balance queries, transaction validation, or dynamic fee adjustment (fees, see [0115]) based on one or more central bank policies.
Claims 7, 14
Furthermore, Frolov teaches:
the electronic wallet associated with the titleholder maintains compatibility with a first protocol (e.g. password, see [0094]) associated with the distributed ledger tokens and a second protocol (multi-factor authentication, see [0094]) associated with the central bank system.
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Soon-Shiong et al. (US 2024/0264996) discloses an efficient computer-based indexing via digital tokens, systems, methods, and apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights