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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed September 22, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-19, 22, and 65-72, are pending in this case. Claims 1 and 19 are currently amended. Claims 5, 20-21, and 23-64 were previously canceled via preliminary amendment. Claims 68-70 are withdrawn, pursuant to a Requirement for Restriction issued September 21, 2021. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-19, 22, 65-67, and 71-72 are under examination in this case.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 22, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2022, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 19, as currently amended, that the claims recite statutory subject matter. More specifically, applicant argues Enfish.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
More particularly, applicant argues that the claims are directed to specific improvements in computer (or Blockchain) functionality as in Enfish. (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Note that the claims in the instant case are not in any way similar to Enfish (as the claims do not improve the function of the computer itself by providing “increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements” (Enfish at 1690) but merely serves as to recite a commercial interaction which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite (in part) receiving a transaction request, transferring an asset from a first user to a second user, and recording the transfer, which is grouped within the "Certain methods of organizing human activity", specifically, "commercial or legal interactions... grouping(s) of abstract ideas because the claims involve a commercial transaction in prong one of Step 2A (see MPEP 2106).
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 19, as currently amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 6-19, 22, and 65-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 19 is directed to a nontransitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, the claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite a commercial interaction.
Specifically, the claims recite receiving a transaction request, transferring an asset from a first user to a second user, and recording the transfer. The claims recite a commercial transaction, which is grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) because they involve verifying a transaction.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional elements of the claims such as the distributed network with a plurality of nodes as well as the computer program product comprising one or more computer usable non-transitory media having computer readable program code embedded therein for controlling a digital property management system (claim 19), merely implement the abstract idea. The use of a distributed network with a plurality of nodes, as well as a computer program product comprising one or more computer usable non-transitory media having computer readable program code embedded therein for controlling a digital property management system, as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and 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, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using servers and a distributed network with a plurality of nodes, as well as a computer program product comprising one or more computer usable non-transitory media having computer readable program code embedded therein for controlling a digital property management system to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of transferring assets. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the distributed network with multiple nodes perform the steps or functions of receiving a transaction request, transferring an asset from a first user to a second user, and recording the transfer. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of keeping records of transactions.
Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims, 2-4, 6-18, 22, and 65-67 further describe the abstract idea of transferring assets. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 12, 22, 65-67, and 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneau (US 2016/0092988) in view of Lee et al (US 2008/0307530) and Meeks (US 2007/0244809).
Regarding claims 1 and 19–
Letourneau discloses a method performed by a plurality of nodes of a distributed transaction consensus network, wherein the plurality of nodes includes a first digital property issuer and a second digital property issuer which are communicatively connected to and different from each other (par 37 “The digital assets trading program or system may incorporate a multitude of different asset digital wallets”; par 40 ““de-centralized network of traders (DNoT)” may refer to a plurality of users that can transfer digital assets amongst each other”), the method comprising:
(a) receiving a transaction request, by the distributed transaction consensus network, for a first type of digital property to be sent from a first virtual wallet and for a second type of digital property to be received by a second virtual wallet; (par 17, having a digital decentralized network that has a first asset or first type of digital property to be traded using tokens, par 76 a wallet having different types of assets or digital property such as bitcoin and Litecoin with each wallet A, B, C having a different type of digital property, par 18, “send the amount of the first asset to the receiving address of a second user digital wallet of the second user”, par 15 transferring a first asset from a first digital wallet and trading the first asset for a second asset using a computer to submit the trade), and
(c) recording the transaction in a distributed ledger (par 37 recording assets in a distributed ledger with cryptographic keys; par 93 using signature of the accounts and the trading fees to complete the digital transaction).
Lee teaches, as Letourneau does not specifically disclose, wherein the first type of digital property is minted by the first digital property issuer and the second type of digital property is minted by the second digital property issuer (par 19 “creating, at the first rights issuer, a first rights object response message containing at least one of rights objects indicated by the rights object request message and at least one signature . . . creating, at the second rights issuer, a second rights object”; also claim 9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Letourneau and Lee so as to improve protected contents management efficiency. (Lee, par 16)
Letourneau does not specifically teach by determining that the second type of digital property is minted by the second digital property issuer based on information of the second digital property issuer included in the second type of digital property, constructing a transaction to transfer the first type of digital property minted by the first digital property issuer from the first virtual wallet associated with the first digital property issuer to a first virtual treasury owned by the first digital property issuer and to transfer the second type of digital property from a second virtual treasury owned by the second digital property issuer to the second virtual wallet associated with the second digital property issuer.
However, Letourneau teaches determining that the second type of digital property is issued by the second digital property issuer based on information of the second digital property issuer included in the second type of digital property. (Par 17-18 “receive a second token having second token information from the second user using the de-centralized network of trader, where the second token information includes de-centralized network of traders address of the second user, sending and receiving addresses of digital wallets of the second user, and the unique transaction identifier received from the central processing server” (information of the second digital property issuer included in the second type of digital property)).
Meeks teaches constructing a transaction to transfer the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer from the first virtual wallet associated with the first digital property issuer to a first virtual treasury owned by the first digital property issuer and to transfer the second type of digital property from a second virtual treasury owned by the second digital property issuer to the second virtual wallet associated with the second digital property issuer. (par 32-33, 37).
Additionally, Lee discloses wherein the first type of digital property is minted by the first digital property issuer and the second type of digital property is minted by the second digital property issuer (par 19, also claim 9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Letourneau and Meeks so as to improve protected contents management efficiency. (Lee, par 16)
Further, Meeks teaches constructing a transaction to transfer the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer from the first virtual wallet associated with the first digital property issuer to a first virtual treasury owned by the first digital property issuer and to transfer the second type of digital property from a second virtual treasury owned by the second digital property issuer to the second virtual wallet associated with the second digital property issuer. (par 32-33, 37).
It would be obvious to combine Letourneau and Lee with Meeks in order to allow buyers and sellers to trade with confidence that the property being traded is actually available for legitimate trade. (Meeks par 10)
Regarding claim 2 –
Letourneau discloses that the first type of digital property is one of digital currencies, digital securities, digital bonds, digital futures, and digital precious metals, (par 100 having a trade matching process for a remote exchange including User A or a first user and the second type of asset, Asset B to be traded for the first type of asset, Asset A, with the public address of the second with user, User B) and the second type of property is one of digital currencies, digital securities, digital bonds, digital futures, and digital precious metals. (par 76, wallet having different types of assets or digital property such as bitcoin and Litecoin, with each wallet A, B, C having a different type of digital property such as stock shares).
Regarding claim 3 –
Letourneau discloses that the first type of digital property is the same as the second type of digital property, (par 91 having the same digital assets for the trading program with instructions imbedded in a block chain network, par 80 transferring funds to a digital wallet from a personal account or using the same type of digital property from the personal account to the digital wallet).
Note that the language “and each of the first type of digital property and the second type of digital property is one of digital currencies including digital US dollar, digital Japanese Yen, digital Canadian dollar, digital Euro, and digital New Taiwan Dollar” constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and therefore does not serve to distinguish from the prior art. In re Kao, 639 F.3d1057, ___, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d1267, ___, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05.
Note that Letourneau fails to expressly disclose that each of the first type of digital property and the second type of digital property is one of digital currencies including digital US dollar, digital Japanese Yen, digital Canadian dollar, digital Euro, and digital New Taiwan Dollar.
However, the differences between having each of the digital properties be one of digital currencies including digital US dollar, digital Japanese Yen, digital Canadian dollar, digital Euro, and digital New Taiwan Dollar are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The various steps would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to use one of digital currencies including digital US dollar, digital Japanese Yen, digital Canadian dollar, digital Euro, and digital New Taiwan Dollar because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4 –
Letourneau teaches wherein the step (b) comprises:
(b1) the first digital property issuer transferring the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer from the first virtual wallet owned by a first subscriber to the first virtual treasury owned by the first digital property issuer (par 108 transferring digital assets from the first user, User A, and clearing both the asset and the fees associated with the asset; par 36 using subscriber for defining a user on the network, par 109 confirming that both asset Type A and asset Type B have been received by remote exchange);
(b2) the first digital property issuer transferring one or more selected types of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer or by the second digital property issuer from the first virtual treasury to the second virtual treasury owned by the second digital property issuer (par 108-109 ensuring that funds are available for the asset Type B to be sent to the user A, also with funds for feeds and once it is confirmed that both the first digital property asset Type A and the second digital property asset, Type B are confirmed then the transaction is successful and the asset Type A should be unfrozen), wherein the one or more selected types of digital property are selected from any type of digital property contained in the first virtual treasury (par 115 allowing a Trader or user to, select a pair that the user wants to trade of the first type of digital property, par 76 having a wallet with three different types of digital property for trading digital assets or property on a decentralized network);
(b3) the second digital property issuer transferring the second type of digital property issued by the second digital property issuer from the second virtual treasury to the second virtual wallet owned by a second subscriber (par 115 allowing two users or Traders to trade, exchange or sell assets in a wallet by checking, if there are enough funds in the wallet and exchanging the assets or transferring the assets to the appropriate account, par 44 using the same methods between banks and brokerage houses or different types of issuers).
Regarding claims 6 and 22 -
Letourneau discloses that step (b) comprises:
(b1) the first digital property issuer transferring the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer from the first virtual wallet owned by a first subscriber to the first virtual treasury owned by the first digital property issuer (par 108 transferring digital assets from the first user, User A and clearing both the asset and the fees associated with the asset, par 36 using subscriber for defining a user on the network, par 109 confirming that both asset Type A and asset Type B have been received by remote exchange);
(b2) the first digital property issuer transferring the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer or by the second digital property issuer from the first virtual treasury to the second virtual treasury owned by the second digital property issuer (par 108-109 ensuring that funds are available for the asset Type B to be sent to the user A also with funds for feeds and once it is confirmed that both the first digital property asset Type A and the second digital property asset Type B are confirmed then the transaction is successful and the asset Type A should be unfrozen);
(b3) the second digital property issuer transferring the second type of digital property issued by the second digital property issuer from the second virtual treasury to the second virtual wallet owned by a second subscriber, wherein the second type of digital property is the same as the first type of digital property (par 91 having the same digital assets for the trading program with instructions imbedded in a blockchain network, par 80 transferring funds to a digital wallet from a personal account or using the same type of digital property from the personal account to the digital wallet).
Regarding claim 11 –
Letourneau discloses that the first virtual wallet does not store any type of digital property issued by the second digital property issuer (par 76 having a wallet manager module that has multiple electronic wallets with each wallet having a different type of asset, par 45 using a bank to clear assets and move currency from bitcoins for exchanging assets); and the second virtual wallet does not store any type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer. (par 76 having a first digital wallet with a first type of asset such as bitcoin and a second wallet with a second typed of asset such as stock shares, par 76 each of the wallets having bitcoin, or Litecoin, or ACME shares in the individual wallets).
Regarding claim 12 –
Letourneau discloses:
(d) charging, by the first digital property issuer, a first transaction fee to the first virtual wallet (par 108 having a type X trading fee for transferring an asset to be cleared with sufficient funds, par 65 having trading fees to a receiving address which was specified by the central processor); and
(e) charging, by the second digital property issuer, a second transaction fee to the second virtual wallet (par 95 having a trading fee for the terminal of the second user and the first user and unlocking the received electronic assets).
Regarding claim 65 –
Claim 65 constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and therefore does not serve to distinguish from the prior art. In re Kao, 639 F.3d1057, ___, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d1267, ___, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05.
Note that Letourneau fails to expressly disclose that the first digital property issuer and the second digital property issuer is one of a bank, an investment institute, a trading institute, and a telecom operator.
Regarding claim 66 –
Letourneau teaches that the distributed ledger uses a blockchain data structure. (par 37 a distributed ledger)
Regarding claim 67 –
Claim 67 constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and therefore does not serve to distinguish from the prior art. In re Kao, 639 F.3d1057, ___, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d1267, ___, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05.
Note that Letourneau fails to expressly disclose that the first virtual wallet corresponds to a first phone number and the second virtual wallet corresponds to a second phone number.
However, the differences between having the first virtual wallet correspond to a first phone number and the second virtual wallet correspond to a second phone number are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The various steps would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to have the first virtual wallet correspond to a first phone number and the second virtual wallet correspond to a second phone number because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 71-72 –
Claims 71 and 72 constitute nonfunctional descriptive material and therefore do not serve to distinguish from the prior art. In re Kao, 639 F.3d1057, ___, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d1267, ___, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05.
Note that Letourneau fails to expressly disclose that the information of the first digital property issuer is a value indicative of the first type of digital property and the first digital property issuer and the information of the second digital property issuer is a value indicative of the second type of digital property and the second digital property issuer.
However, the differences between having the information of the first digital property issuer being a value indicative of the first type of digital property and the first digital property issuer and the information of the second digital property issuer being a value indicative of the second type of digital property and the second digital property issuer are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The various steps would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to have the information of the first digital property issuer being a value indicative of the first type of digital property and the first digital property issuer and the information of the second digital property issuer being is a value indicative of the second type of digital property and the second digital property issuer, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneau (US 2016/0092988) in view of Lee et al (US 2008/0307530) and Meeks (US 2007/0244809), and further in view of Armstrong (US 2015/0262137).
Letourneau in view of Lee and Meeks teaches as above.
Regarding claim 7 –
Letourneau teaches in step (b2), the first digital property issuer transfers from the first virtual treasury (par 108-109 ensuring that funds are available for the asset Type B to be sent to user A also with funds for feeds and once it is confirmed that both the first digital property asset Type A and the second digital property asset Type B are confirmed then the transaction is successful and the asset Type A should be unfrozen), the first type of digital property issued by the second digital property issuer to the second virtual treasury when the first virtual treasury contains the first type of digital property issued by the second digital property issuer (fig4, element 410a first type of digital property Bitcoin issued by a first issuer and a second type of digital property, element 410b issued by a second property issuer, par 37 having means for storing information related to the electronic transaction for recording transactions on the distributed block chain ledger or virtual treasury means); and the first digital property issuer transfers from the first virtual treasury a remaining amount of the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer to the second virtual treasury when the first virtual treasury does not contain a requested amount of the first type of digital property issued by the second digital property issuer (par 63 transferring the electronic assets as per the specifications for the matching trade by unlocking the digital wallets, and par 79 verification of the transfer of digital assets or property and filling the trade with the digital wallets).
Letourneau does not specifically teach a priority for the digital property.
Armstrong discloses a method for transaction bitcoin (abs) and teaches a priority for the digital property (par 19 having a first transfer instruction for the amount of bitcoin from the first wallet and a second transfer for recording the amount of bitcoin out of the wallet or prioritizing the transferring of the digital property and payment of the miner's fee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau, Lee, and Meeks with the teaching of Armstrong for the purpose of executing subsequent blockchain transactions (Armstrong, par 19).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneau (US 2016/0092988) in view of Lee et al (US 2008/0307530) and Meeks (US 2007/0244809) and further in view of Sands et al (US 2002/0082979).
Letourneau in view of Lee and Meeks discloses as above.
Regarding claim 8 –
Letourneau teaches the transaction method as shown above. Letourneau does not explicitly teach the second digital property issuer sets an exposure limit of holding the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer.
Sands has a mechanism for pre-trade compliance checking (abs) and teaches the second digital property issuer sets an exposure limit of holding the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer (par 59 getting the entity limits at the start of the process to determine the exposure for the security and performing a guarantor diversification test).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau, Lee, and Meeks with the teaching of Sands for the purpose of determining the diversification of the security (Sands, par 59).
Regarding claim 9 –
Letourneau teaches that the transaction request is denied when the transaction will cause the second digital property issuer to hold more amount of the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer than the exposure limit set by the second digital property issuer (par 81 verifying that the wallet has sufficient funds or freezing the funds until the funds are available for the financial trade, par 101 having a validation message for checking on exchange rate and ensuring the amount of the asset is less than or equal to the bid amount for the asset).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneau (US 2016/0092988), Lee et al (US 2008/0307530), Meeks (US 2007/0244809) and Sands et al (US 2002/0082979) and further in view of Sweet (US 7,949,606).
Letourneau in view of Lee, Meeks, and Sand discloses as above.
Regarding claim 10 –
Letourneau, in view of Meeks, and Sands teaches the transaction method as shown above.
Letourneau does not explicitly teach that the second digital property issuer's exposure limit of holding the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer is set to zero.
Sands has a mechanism for pre-trade compliance checking (abs) and teaches the second digital property issuer's exposure limit of holding the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer is set to zero (par 59 getting the entity limits at the start of the process to determine the exposure for the security and performing a guarantor diversification test, par 188 having a limit of zero showing that the ability to the purchase the security is used up).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau with the teaching of Sands for the purpose of determining the diversification of the security (Sands, par 59).
Sweet further teaches a private key to transfer the first type of digital property issued by the first digital property issuer is stolen or lost. (col 17 ln 50-col 18 ln 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau in view of Lee and Meeks with the teaching of Sands and the key revocation of Sweet for greater transaction security.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneau (US 2016/0092988) in view of Lee et al (US 2008/0307530), Meeks (US 2007/0244809)) and Pennanen (US 2015/0356555).
Letourneau in view of Lee and Meeks teaches as above.
Regarding claim 13 –
Letourneau teaches the transaction method as shown above. Letourneau does not explicitly teach charging, by a miner, for generating a new block to record the transaction, a third transaction fee to the first virtual treasury or the second virtual treasury.
Pennanen has a system for implementing at least one cryptocurrency transaction (abs) and teaches charging, by a miner, for generating a new block to record the transaction (par 24 having bitcoin mining and new blocks for preventing fraudulent transactions), a third transaction fee to the first virtual treasury or the second virtual treasury (par 3 having a payment reward or a fee for mining a transaction in exchange for products and services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau, Lee, and Meeks with the teaching of Pennanen for the purpose of confirming bitcoin transactions and digitally including them in the blockchain (Pennanen, par 67).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneau (US 2016/0092988) in view of Lee et al (US 2008/0307530) and Meeks (US 2007/0244809) and in view of Sweet (US 7,949,606).
Letourneau in view of Lee and Meeks teaches as above.
Regarding claim 14 –
Letourneau teaches the transaction method as shown above.
Letourneau does not explicitly teach that the distributed transaction consensus network has an administrator.
Sweet has an intellectual property that is sold to buyers through a kiosk (abs) and teaches the distributed transaction consensus network has an administrator (col 4,ln 35-55 having administrators that can be merchants with administrative functionality to sell content on the kiosk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at, the time of the invention to modify Letourneau, Lee, and Meeks with the teaching of Sweet for the purpose of delegating functions to administrators (Sweet, col 4, ln 35-55).
Regarding claim 15 –
Letourneau teaches the administrator can issue a digital fee token (par 65 having trading fee that is sent to the receiving address, par 60 using tokens for clearing transactions where the tokens keep the details about the transaction).
Regarding claim 16 –
Letourneau teaches the transaction method as shown above.
Letourneau does not explicitly teach charging, by, the administrator, a fourth transaction fee to the first virtual treasury or the second virtual treasury.
Sweet has an intellectual property is sold to buyers through a kiosk (abs) and teaches charging, by the administrator (col 4, ln 35-55 having administrators that can be merchants with administrative functionality to sell content on the kiosk), a fourth transaction fee to the first virtual treasury or the second virtual treasury (col 16 ln 10-25 having administrative fee for payment processing for processing content or first fee associated with the transaction, col 19 ln 35-50 having a merchant fee or second fee for the transaction, that is deducted from a bank account of the merchant, for providing financial service along with a commission or a third fee for the transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau with the teaching of Sweet for the purpose of delegating functions to administrators (Sweet, col 4, ln 35-55).
Regarding claim 17 –
Letourneau teaches the transaction method as shown above.
Letourneau does not explicitly teach the administrator authorizes the first digital property issuer or the second digital property issuer to issue one or more types of digital property.
Sweet has an intellectual property that is sold to buyers through a kiosk (abs) and teaches the administrator authorizes the first digital property issuer or the second digital property issuer to issue one or more types of digital property (col 4 ln 35-55 having administrators that can be merchants with administrative functionality to sell content on the kiosk, col 19 ln 25-40 using the system administrator to ensure the seller gets the right price and the correct accounts are debited and credited for the payment system).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneau (US 2016/0092988), Lee et al (US 2008/0307530), and Meeks (US 2007/0244809) and in view of Sweet (US 7,949,606) and Pennanen (US 2015/0356555).
Letourneau in view of Lee and Meeks teaches the transaction method as shown above.
Letourneau does explicitly teach that the administrator authorizes a means to generate a new block recording the transaction.
Sweet teaches an intellectual property that is sold to buyers through a kiosk (abs) and teaches the administrator authorizes a means to generate a new block recording the transaction (co l4 ln 35-55 having administrators that can be merchants with administrative functionality to sell content on the kiosk, col 19 ln 25-40 using the system administrator to ensure the seller gets the right price and the correct accounts are debited and credited for the payments system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau with the teaching of Sweet for the purpose of delegating functions to administrators (Sweet, col 4 ln 35-55).
Letourneau and Sweet do not explicitly teach a miner, and set rules for miners to compete against or support each other.
Pennanen has a system for implementing at least one cryptocurrency transaction (abs) and teaches a miner, and set rules for miners to compete against or support each (par 24 having bitcoin mining and new blocks for preventing fraudulent transactions, par 62 and Table1 having a new block through a mining transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Letourneau, Lee and Meeks with the teaching of Pennanen for the purpose of confirming bitcoin transactions and including them in the blockchain. (Pennanen, par 67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson (US 2013/0311381) teaches limiting data exposure in authenticated multi-system transactions.
Pourfallah et al (US 2013/0218769) teach a mobile funding system and method.
Sumanjeet, Emergence of Payment Systems in the Age of Electronic Commerce: The State of Art, Published in first Asian Himalayas International Conference on Internet (Page(s): 1-18) (Year: 2009)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
