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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Oct. 09, 2019 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on December 05, 2025.
Claims 1-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24 and 34-35 have been canceled.
Claims 25-32 have been withdrawn.
Claims 16, 19, 22 and 25-33 are pending.
Claims 16, 19, 22 and 33 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues: As explained in prior responses, the claimed virtual currency data, which necessarily includes encrypted and plaintext portions, is sent via an electronic network from the settlement device to a user terminal. The user terminal delivers the virtual currency data to the predetermined device for requesting settlement (e.g., a settlement terminal). And the predetermined device for requesting settlement (e.g., the settlement terminal) sends, via the electronic network, the virtual currency data to the settlement device. Accordingly, the virtual currency data, including encrypted data, is exchanged across an electronic network among several different entities. These types of operations are entirely consistent with operations described in subject matter-eligible Example 41 presented in connection with the 2019 Guidance. See Applicant’s Arguments pages 8-12.
The reasoning for this rejection is the same as was laid out in the Office Action Final Rejection, dated 07/09/2025 (hereinafter, “Office Action”). Additionally, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, Examiner respectfully notes that claims 16, 19, 22 and 33, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of settling an amount; without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claims 16, 19, 22, as amended, describe the abstract idea of settling an amount, which correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles. Furthermore, the settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “the settlement unit to generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data including virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by, according to a predetermined encryption method, encryption of plaintext original data that is data including issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value, the virtual currency data further including the plaintext original data of the issue subject information and the amount information, and to transmit the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal of the user; the settlement device receiving unit to receive the virtual currency data, which is data of virtual currency having a monetary value, via the electronic network from a predetermined device for requesting settlement that has received the virtual currency data from the user terminal; the decryption unit to decrypt the virtual currency encryption data included in the virtual currency data received by the settlement device receiving unit, wherein a key used when encrypting the virtual currency encryption data is the key used for decrypting the virtual currency encryption data; and the settlement unit to, when the virtual currency encryption data is successfully decrypted with the decryption means unit, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit, wherein the settlement unit is configured to generate a final determination data indicating whether the settlement is accepted or the settlement is not accepted, and wherein the final determination data is sent via the electronic network from the settlement unit to the predetermined device for requesting settlement.” are simply making use of a computer (i.e., settlement device) and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed below under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant argues that: As to analysis in connection with Step 2A, Prong 2, the Examples used in conjunction with the 2019 Guidelines provide the following suggestion.
The recitation of information processing or calculation performed by a computer is determined at prong two of Step 2A that the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because such processing by the computer is indistinguishable from human activity. On the other hand, when the claim recites internal or external hardware (i.e., internal hardware, e.g., a CPU and a memory, external hardware, e.g., a display and an input device, and other devices, e.g., a device of the opposite party for communication) and the hardware is related to the information processing or calculation performed by the computer, the claim implements a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture, i.e., the CPU, the memory, the display, the input device and the device of the opposite party for communication, that is integral to the claim and the claim is determined eligible at prong two of step 2A.
This is clear from the analysis related to claims 1 and 3 in Example 37 and the analysis related to claims 1 and 2 in Example 42. Again, whether claim elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity is not a consideration at Step 2A.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, and unlike claims 1 and 2 in Example 42 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply, generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data; transmit the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal; receive the virtual currency data; decrypt the virtual currency encryption data; accept settlement of an amount of money and generate a final determination data indicating whether the settlement is accepted or the settlement is not accepted. The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites: “the settlement unit to generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data including virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by, according to a predetermined encryption method, encryption of plaintext original data that is data including issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value, the virtual currency data further including the plaintext original data of the issue subject information and the amount information, and to transmit the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal of the user; the settlement device receiving unit to receive the virtual currency data, which is data of virtual currency having a monetary value, via the electronic network from a predetermined device for requesting settlement that has received the virtual currency data from the user terminal; the decryption unit to decrypt the virtual currency encryption data included in the virtual currency data received by the settlement device receiving unit, wherein a key used when encrypting the virtual currency encryption data is the key used for decrypting the virtual currency encryption data; and the settlement unit to, when the virtual currency encryption data is successfully decrypted with the decryption means unit, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit, wherein the settlement unit is configured to generate a final determination data indicating whether the settlement is accepted or the settlement is not accepted, and wherein the final determination data is sent via the electronic network from the settlement unit to the predetermined device for requesting settlement.” The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input (e.g., receive data), process (e.g., encrypt and decrypt), and output data. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely processing data (e.g., settling an amount) (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data, e.g., settling an amount, and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of settling an amount. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory. The settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The amended claims 16, 19, 22 recites a settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory. The settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of a settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus, fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Hence, unlike claims 1 and 2 in Example 42 of the 2024 updated USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, claims 16, 19, 22, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: In response, Applicant notes that in the presently claimed invention, the plaintext data included in the virtual currency data does not result in data security vulnerability because the virtual currency data further includes the encrypted data, i.e., the virtual currency encryption data. This is because the virtual currency data is configured as described section [0008] of the specification: For example, in the case of the first type of settlement device, depending on whether the virtual currency encryption data included in the virtual currency data can be decrypted, the authenticity of the virtual currency encryption data and the virtual currency data can be determined. Therefore, the safety of such virtual currency data can be improved according to the level of safety of the encryption technology used for it…. Applicant notes, finally, in regard to the §101 rejection, that each of the steps in the 2019 Guidelines flowchart, i.e., Step 1, Step 2A - Prong 1, Step 2A - Prong 2, and Step 2B, are independent from each other and, if the claimed invention is determined eligible at any one of the steps, the claimed invention is subject-matter eligible.
It is again important to point out that the notion of whether a claim element is well understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity, whether the claimed invention recites significantly more than an abstract idea, and whether the claimed invention can be performed as a mental process are each independent considerations and respective analysis steps. Notably, the 2019 Guidelines exclude WURC activity, significantly more evaluation, and mental process considerations from evaluation in Step 2A, Prong 2.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. The improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have determined that processing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the recited combination of steps in claims 16, 19, 22 operate in a well-understood, routine, conventional and generic way. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Applying the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility here, and as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements: a settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory, are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements: a settlement device comprising: settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary for data gathering, processing, and outputting. The evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to receiving and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations, as amended, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 16, 19, 22 and 33.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding claim 16: Applicant is of the opinion prior art fails to disclose, see Applicant Arguments pages 13-18.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 16 has been considered. The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, with respect to Applicant’s argument: Thus, the transaction message includes the encrypted data and the plaintext data. However, Kumar does not teach or suggest which data included in the transaction information is to be encrypted and what is the content of plaintext data. In particular, Kumar does not teach or suggest whether the plaintext data includes content corresponding to the encrypted part of the transaction message. See Applicant Arguments pages 14-15.
Firstly, Applicant failed to argue specific positively claim limitations. At best, Applicant states “Kumar does not teach or suggest whether the plaintext data includes content corresponding to the encrypted part of the transaction message.” Additionally, Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
However, Kumar discloses claim limitations:
the settlement unit to generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data including virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by, according to a predetermined encryption method, encryption of plaintext original data that is data including issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value (Kumar [0059]: “Encryption” means using a key or cipher to convert a piece of information into scrambled information so that the original information can be transferred securely); [0115]: In step 703, TPM 202 at device 201b…creates an encrypted message comprising all the transaction in “pending settlement” status and its local account information where message is encrypted using the private key of device 201b; [0091]: The payment transaction request comprises the transaction elements shown in FIG. 13 including at least the amount X to pay in the electronic currency Y where Y represents a localized denomination of the electronic currency….The request message comprises the transaction information 1301 as shown in FIG. 13), the virtual currency data further including the [plain vanilla transaction information] data of the issue subject information and the amount information, and to transmit the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal of the user (Kumar [0108]: the transaction digest containing both encrypted and plain vanilla transaction information from the payer device 201a; [0086]: All this information can be encrypted and stored with the currency information when new currency is created by the issuing authority), (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0115], [0091], [0086], [0108] and Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7 and Fig. 13);
Secondly, as indicated above and in the Office Action. Kumar discloses plain vanilla transaction information; thus, the data is in plain text (e.g., not encrypted). However, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cited Von Mueller to specifically disclose: generating a data set including encryption data and a plaintext data (Von Mueller [0197]: In block 214, the appropriate data items from the gathered data are selected for encryption. Data that is not selected for encryption can be passed on for packaging as illustrated by flow arrow 216. In functional block 218, encryption module retrieves one or more keys from a memory or other storage and uses those keys to encrypt the selected data in block 220. In block 222, the encrypted data is packaged with the clear text data for transmission to terminal 114; [0263]: The example of FIG. 20 is described in terms of the above example illustrated in FIG. 19 where a portion of the PAN is encrypted utilizing the merchant ID as the key 275 and repackaged into an encrypted PAN 279, wherein, in this example, the encrypted PAN 279 includes a concatenation of clear text data and encrypted data). Thus, Von Mueller disclose, plaintext data includes content corresponding to the encrypted part of the transaction message.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumar and Schneier with Von Mueller to include a well-known data transmission function such as transmitting clear text data to reduce cost of data security implementation.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
Additionally, Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 16, 19, 22 and 33 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant' s amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 19, 22 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the phrase “accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of applying the prior art, the examiner interprets the term “the original data” as “plaintext original data” as recited earlier in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16, 19, 22 and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of settling an amount without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 19 and 22.
In the instant case, claims 16 and 33 are directed to a settlement device comprising: a settlement device receiving unit; a decryption unit; a settlement unit; a processor; and a memory, storing instructions, claim 19 is directed to a method, and claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage media. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 16 is directed to a settlement device comprising: a settlement device receiving unit; a decryption unit; a settlement unit; a processor; and a memory, storing instructions that, when executed by the processor cause, which performs a series of steps: “the settlement unit to generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data including virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by, according to a predetermined encryption method, encryption of plaintext original data that is data including issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value, the virtual currency data further including the plaintext original data of the issue subject information and the amount information, and to transmit the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal of the user; the settlement device receiving unit to receive the virtual currency data, which is data of virtual currency having a monetary value, via the electronic network from a predetermined device for requesting settlement that has received the virtual currency data from the user terminal; the decryption unit to decrypt the virtual currency encryption data included in the virtual currency data received by the settlement device receiving unit, wherein a key used when encrypting the virtual currency encryption data is the key used for decrypting the virtual currency encryption data; and the settlement unit to, when the virtual currency encryption data is successfully decrypted with the decryption means unit, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit, wherein the settlement unit is configured to generate a final determination data indicating whether the settlement is accepted or the settlement is not accepted, and wherein the final determination data is sent via the electronic network from the settlement unit to the predetermined device for requesting settlement”. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of settling an amount (with the exception of the italicized terms above), which correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: fundamental economic principles. The settlement device limitations, e.g., a settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claim 16 such as a settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory performs the steps or functions of: “the settlement unit to generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data including virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by, according to a predetermined encryption method, encryption of plaintext original data that is data including issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value, the virtual currency data further including the plaintext original data of the issue subject information and the amount information, and to transmit the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal of the user; the settlement device receiving unit to receive the virtual currency data, which is data of virtual currency having a monetary value, via the electronic network from a predetermined device for requesting settlement that has received the virtual currency data from the user terminal; the decryption unit to decrypt the virtual currency encryption data included in the virtual currency data received by the settlement device receiving unit, wherein a key used when encrypting the virtual currency encryption data is the key used for decrypting the virtual currency encryption data; and the settlement unit to, when the virtual currency encryption data is successfully decrypted with the decryption means unit, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit, wherein the settlement unit is configured to generate a final determination data indicating whether the settlement is accepted or the settlement is not accepted, and wherein the final determination data is sent via the electronic network from the settlement unit to the predetermined device for requesting settlement.” The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 16 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a settlement device receiving unit; decryption unit; settlement unit; processor; and memory limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can be extended to the independent claim 19 and hence, claim 19 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 16.
Claim 22 recites the abstract idea subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 16. The newly identified additional element of a non-transitory computer readable storage media also fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as it is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Thus, claim 22 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 16.
Regarding dependent claim 33
Claim 33 recites: the currency generating and encrypting unit to encrypt, according to a predetermined encryption method, plaintext original data that is data including the issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value, and thus generate virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by encryption of the original data; the combination unit to add, to the virtual currency encryption data, the plaintext original data of the issue subject information and the amount information, and thus generate the virtual currency data which includes the virtual currency encryption data and is data of virtual currency having a monetary value, and wherein the currency generating and encrypting unit and the combination unit are integrated with the settlement device according to claim 16.
The dependent claim 33 has further defined the abstract idea that is present in the respective independent claim 16; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: fundamental economic principles and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above.
The dependent claim 33 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 16, 19, 22 and 33 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 16, 19, 22 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashish Kumar (US 20180315027 A1, “Kumar”) in view of Bruce Schneier (NPL: Applied Cryptography Second Edition, protocols, algorithms, and source code in C 1996 “Schneier”) in view of von Mueller et al. (US 20080091944 A1, “von Mueller”) further in view of HOSP et al. (US 20150073999 A1, “HOSP”).
Regarding claims 16 and 22: Kumar discloses, a settlement device comprising (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7 and Fig. 13):
a settlement device receiving unit (see Figs. 1, 3, 7 and 13);
a decryption unit (see Figs. 1, 3, 7 and 13);
a settlement unit (see Figs. 1, 3, 7 and 13);
a processor (see Figs. 1, 3, 7 and 13);
and a memory, storing instructions that, when executed by the processor cause (see Figs. 1, 3, 7 and 13):
the settlement unit to generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data including virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by, according to a predetermined encryption method, encryption of plaintext original data that is data including issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value (Kumar [0059]: “Encryption” means using a key or cipher to convert a piece of information into scrambled information so that the original information can be transferred securely); [0115]: In step 703, TPM 202 at device 201b…creates an encrypted message comprising all the transaction in “pending settlement” status and its local account information where message is encrypted using the private key of device 201b; [0091]: The payment transaction request comprises the transaction elements shown in FIG. 13 including at least the amount X to pay in the electronic currency Y where Y represents a localized denomination of the electronic currency….The request message comprises the transaction information 1301 as shown in FIG. 13.), the virtual currency data further including the [plain vanilla transaction information] data of the issue subject information and the amount information, and to transmit the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal of the user (Kumar [0108]: the transaction digest containing both encrypted and plain vanilla transaction information from the payer device 201a; [0086]: All this information can be encrypted and stored with the currency information when new currency is created by the issuing authority), (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0115], [0091], [0086], [0108] and Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7 and Fig. 13);
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner considers, Encryption means using a key or cipher to convert a piece of information into scrambled information so that the original information can be transferred securely of Kumar to be the encryption of plaintext original data of the claimed language.
a settlement device receiving unit to receive the virtual currency data, which is data of virtual currency having a monetary value, via the network from a predetermined device for requesting settlement that has received the virtual currency data from the user terminal (Kumar [0115]: central controller 101 receives the transaction information from device 201b for settlement purpose…In step 703, TPM 202 at device 201b…creates an encrypted message comprising all the transaction in “pending settlement” status and its local account information where message is encrypted using the private key of device 201b, and then sends the encrypted message to the central controller 101 to synchronize its local repository information with the central controller; [0091]: The payment transaction request comprises the transaction elements shown in FIG. 13 including at least the amount X to pay in the electronic currency Y where Y represents a localized denomination of the electronic currency….The request message comprises the transaction information 1301 as shown in FIG. 13; ([0108]: the transaction digest containing both encrypted and plain vanilla transaction information from the payer device 201a0, (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0115], [0091], [0086], [0108] and Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7 and Fig. 13);
the decryption unit to decrypt the virtual currency encryption data included in the virtual currency data received by the settlement device receiving unit, wherein a [key pair] used when encrypting the virtual currency encryption data is the key used for decrypting the virtual currency encryption data (Kumar [0116], “In step 704, Transaction processing module (TPM) 102 at the central controller 101 decrypts the message using public key of device 201b and extracts transactions information and the account information. TPM 102 then decrypts each information record with the public key of the associated device that encrypted the record and validates the hash value of each information record in step 705.”; [0121], “The algorithm used to generate the cryptographic keys can be for example Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) or Diffie-Hellman (DH) or another symmetric or asymmetric cryptographic algorithm as determined by the central controller.”), (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0116], [0091], [0121], and Fig. 3, Fig. 7 and Fig. 13); and
the settlement unit to, when the virtual currency encryption data is successfully decrypted with the decryption unit, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption means (Kumar [0116], “In step 707, PPM 114 carries out further steps to validate each transaction and compute a consolidated debit or credit amount for the account balance for the counterparties of each transaction where such steps are described in detail in FIG. 8” [0118], “PPM then moves the final amount of money from one account to another in step 806 by taking into the account the currency information or submits the request to external entities to move the money via payment gateway interface of the central controller 101.”), (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0116] and [0091] and Fig.3, Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Fig. 13),
wherein the settlement unit is configured to generate a final determination data indicating whether the settlement is accepted or the settlement is not accepted ([0090], “TPM at central controller 101, then in step 1617 decrypts, validates and processes all transactions received in the message 1616, determines the final amount to credit or debit from the central account balance associated with the user identifier at device entity 201b”; [0116], “In step 707, PPM 114 carries out further steps to validate each transaction and compute a consolidated debit or credit amount for the account balance for the counterparties of each transaction where such steps are described in detail in FIG. 8.”), (see paragraphs [0090], [0116]-[0117], [0080], and Figs. 7, 8 and 16), and
wherein the final determination data is sent via the electronic network from the settlement unit to the predetermined device for requesting settlement ([0090], “TPM at central controller 101 then sends the “synchronization complete” message 1618 to the TPM at device 201b”; [0119], “Further in step 807, PPM notifies the TPM to update all the repositories and accounts of the associated devices with transaction status as “settled” and update the account balances accordingly. TPM then waits, in step 808 for each device to synchronize with the central controller to update the local repositories on each device.”), (see paragraphs [0090], [0116]-[0117], [0080], and Figs. 7, 8 and 16).
Examiner’s Note: Additionally, Kumar further discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16 performed by device 201b. For example, device 201b receives the transaction information from payer 201a, In step 603, TPM then decrypts the message using a shared key provided by the Central Controller 101 and step 607, payee device 201b continues further processing of the transaction by checking out from the transaction repository, creating a new transaction record containing various information elements of transaction data structure 1301 that includes the received payment transaction (debit transaction) as a parent transaction attribute 1317 (see paragraphs [0110]-[0112] and Fig. 6).
Kumar further discloses, the algorithm used to generate the cryptographic keys can be for example Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) or Diffie-Hellman (DH) or another symmetric or asymmetric cryptographic algorithm as determined by the central controller.
Kumar does not specifically disclose; however, Schneier discloses: wherein a key used when encrypting the virtual currency encryption data is the key used for decrypting the virtual currency encryption data (Schneier [page 4, section: Symmetric Algorithms], “Symmetric algorithms, sometimes called conventional algorithms, are algorithms where the encryption key can be calculated from the decryption key and vice versa. In most symmetric algorithms, the encryption key and the decryption key are the same. These algorithms, also called secret-key algorithms, single-key algorithms, or one-key algorithms, require that the sender and receiver agree on a key before they can communicate securely. The security of a symmetric algorithm rests in the key; divulging the key means that anyone could encrypt and decrypt messages. As long as the communication needs to remain secret, the key must remain secret”; [page 28, secton 202: COMMUNICATIONS USING SYMMETRIC CRYPTOGRAPHY], “Alice and Bob agree on a cryptosystem. (2) Alice and Bob agree on a key. (3) Alice takes her plain text message and encrypts it using the encryption algorithm and the key. This creates a ciphertext message. (4) Alice sends the ciphertext message to Bob. (5) Bob decrypts the ciphertext message with the same algorithm and key and reads it”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar with Schneier to include a well-known cryptograph function such as Symmetric Algorithms (e.g., conventional algorithms) to encrypt and decrypt messages/transaction using single-key to reduce cost of managing Public-key algorithms (i.e., asymmetric algorithms).
As indicated above, Kumar discloses plain vanilla transaction information, thus, the data is in plain text (e.g., not encrypted). However, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Von Mueller to specifically disclose: generating a data set including encryption data and a plaintext data (Von Mueller [0197]: In block 214, the appropriate data items from the gathered data are selected for encryption. Data that is not selected for encryption can be passed on for packaging as illustrated by flow arrow 216. In functional block 218, encryption module retrieves one or more keys from a memory or other storage and uses those keys to encrypt the selected data in block 220. In block 222, the encrypted data is packaged with the clear text data for transmission to terminal 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumar and Schneier with Von Mueller to include a well-known data transmission function such as transmitting clear text data to reduce cost of data security implementation.
As indicated above, Kumar discloses, generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data (Kumar [0115]: In step 703, TPM 202 at device 201b…creates an encrypted message comprising all the transaction). Kumar further discloses, central controller can instruct the client applications (or Transaction Processing Module) on each device to use a different set of algorithms.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner considers, creates an encrypted message and central controller can instruct the client applications (or Transaction Processing Module) on each device to use a different set of algorithms of Kumar to be the generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data of the claimed language.
However, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites HOSP to specifically disclose, the settlement device both generates and receives virtual currency data. HOSP discloses:
generate, in response to a user request and on behalf of the user, virtual currency data (HOSP [0065]: generating a token request at the payer device and transmitting the token request to the server device. The token request identifies the payment account; and the server device receives the token request and generates the token based on the token request; [0068]: for added security, the server device encrypts the token sent to the payer device), (see abstract and paragraphs [0065] and [0068]);
the settlement device receiving unit to receive the virtual currency data, which is data of virtual currency having a monetary value, via the electronic network from a predetermined device for requesting settlement that has received the virtual currency data from the user terminal (HOSP [0073]: generate a token at the server device and transmitting the token from the server device to the payer device, the token corresponding to a payment account; receive the token at the payer device and transmitting the token from the payer device to the payee device via the short-range wireless communication protocol; receive the token at the payee device and transmitting the token with transaction data from the payee device to the server device, the transaction data corresponding to the payment transaction), (see abstract and paragraphs [0076] and [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumar, Schneier and Von Mueller with HOSP to include a well-known function of conducting a payment transaction such as generating virtual currency data to enhance payment transaction and transaction security.
Claim 19 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 16. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected under a similar rationale as claims 19. Claim 19 further recites and Kumar further discloses: a transmitting step of transmitting the virtual currency data, via an electronic network, to a user terminal of the user (Kumar [0115]: In step 703, TPM 202 at device 201b…creates an encrypted message comprising all the transaction in “pending settlement” status and its local account information where message is encrypted using the private key of device 201b, and then sends the encrypted message to the central controller 101 to synchronize its local repository information with the central controller.
Regarding claim 33: Kumar, Schneier, von Mueller and HOSP, discloses as shown above:
Kumar further discloses: A virtual currency data generating device comprising: a virtual currency generating and encrypting unit; a combination unit; the memory, storing instructions that, when executed by the processor cause:
the currency generating and encrypting unit to encrypt, according to a predetermined encryption method, plaintext original data that is data including the issue subject information including at least information indicative of an issuer of the virtual currency data and amount information that is information for specifying a monetary value (Kumar [0059]: the Examiner considers the encryption of plaintext original data to be the Encryption means using a key or cipher to convert a piece of information into scrambled information so that the original information can be transferred securely.) (Kumar [0021]: …create a unique transaction crypto token comprising of information of the device identifiers, transaction amount, timestamp and other identifiers; storing the crypto token locally until the transaction is synchronized with the central controller; and finally central controller transferring the electronic currency from the payer account to payee account when either of the three devices involved in the transaction synchronizes and checks-in the stored transaction data containing crypto token and other information; [0059]: The request message comprises the transaction information 1301 as shown in FIG. 13 and an encrypted value of a hash of the transaction information wherein hash is computed using a hash function and encrypted values is generated using the private key of the client application associated with the payee device B. Following formula shows by example a method to compute the hash value), (see paragraphs [0059], [0080], [0091] and [0100]-[0101] and Fig. 13, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), and thus generate virtual currency encryption data which is data obtained by encryption of the original data (see abstract and paragraphs [0059], [0080], [0091] and [0020], [0100]-[0101] and Fig. 13, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2);
the combination unit to add, to the virtual currency encryption data, the [plain vanilla transaction information] of the issue subject information and the amount information ([0108]: the transaction digest containing both encrypted and plain vanilla transaction information from the payer device 201a; [0086]: All this information can be encrypted and stored with the currency information when new currency is created by the issuing authority). The Examiner considers “All this information can be encrypted”, thus the data was in plain text before encrypting.
and thus generate the virtual currency data which includes the virtual currency encryption data and is data of virtual currency having a monetary value (see abstract and paragraphs [0059], [0080], [0091] and [0020], [0100]-[0101] and Fig. 13, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), and
wherein the currency generating and encrypting unit and the combination unit are integrated with the settlement device according to claim 16 (Kumar [0080], “Payment processing interface 209 interacts with the payment processing module 114 of the central controller 101 to send and receive payment information into the account managed by the device. Transaction processing module 202 contains a cryptography unit 203 that creates and stores the public key as provided by the central controller for the devices with further capability of encrypting and decrypting data using those keys as well as computing hash value for the information contained in account repository 204 and transaction repository 206.”), (see paragraphs [0080] and [0069] and Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
As indicated above, Kumar discloses plain vanilla transaction information, thus, the data is in plain text (e.g., not encrypted). However, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Von Mueller to specifically disclose: generating a data set including encryption data and a plaintext data (Von Mueller [0197]: In block 214, the appropriate data items from the gathered data are selected for encryption. Data that is not selected for encryption can be passed on for packaging as illustrated by flow arrow 216. In functional block 218, encryption module retrieves one or more keys from a memory or other storage and uses those keys to encrypt the selected data in block 220. In block 222, the encrypted data is packaged with the clear text data for transmission to terminal 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumar, Schneier and HOSP with Von Mueller to include a well-known data transmission function such as transmitting clear text data to reduce cost of data security implementation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699