DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on June 26, 2026.
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Claims 25-32 have been withdrawn.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 25-32 are pending.
Claims 16, 19 and 22 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments pages 9-12.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner follows the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility which is a synthesis of the case law of Alice and its progeny. Additionally, the reasoning for this rejection is the same as was laid out in the Office Action Non-Final Rejection, dated 01/16/2026 (hereinafter, “Office Action”). Furthermore, while Applicant has amended the claim to recite additional subject matter, for example, the amended claim limitations recite, determine that the virtual currency data including the virtual currency encryption data is authentic as a result of the virtual currency encryption data being successfully decrypted with the decryption unit, and, when the virtual currency encryption data is determined to be authentic, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the plaintext original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit, further describe the abstract idea of settling an amount and categorized as a part of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles.
Applicant further argues that, the claims have been further amended in an effort to address the § 101 ground of rejection. In this regard, once the virtual currency data is received at the settlement device, the settlement device is configured to, among other things, "determine that the virtual currency data including the virtual currency encryption data is authentic as a result of the virtual currency encryption data being successfully decrypted with the decryption unit, and, when the virtual currency encryption data is determined to be authentic, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the plaintext original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit." Such additional operations are subject matter eligible under § 101. Determining that virtual currency data ...is authentic via a successful decryption operation is not an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance. And, even if so, whatever abstract idea is allegedly recited is certainly integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) of a network based settlement operation, including express recitation of an authentication step. See Applicant’s arguments page(s) at 10.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees, the claims also fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional claim elements are considered when determining whether the claim recites a practical application, such as a technological improvement, of the abstract idea. However, the amendments fail to introduce any such additional elements. Therefore, this analysis is the same as the analysis laid out in the Office Action.
The claims also fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a combination, are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. However, the amended claims fail to recite any new additional elements. As noted in the Office Action date, the additional elements serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, the amended claims recite, determine that the virtual currency data including the virtual currency encryption data is authentic as a result of the virtual currency encryption data being successfully decrypted with the decryption unit, and, when the virtual currency encryption data is determined to be authentic, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the plaintext original data obtained by decryption of the virtual currency encryption data with the decryption unit. It does not appear that, determine that the virtual currency data including the virtual currency encryption data is authentic as a result of the virtual currency encryption data being successfully decrypted with the decryption unit, and, when the virtual currency encryption data is determined to be authentic, would result in any improvement to the recited technology. Therefore, the amended claim limitations do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See detail rejection below. Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 16, 19 and 22.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant s amendments to the claims have overcome this ground of rejection. Accordingly, this ground of rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant s amendments to the claims have overcome this ground of rejection. Accordingly, this ground of rejection is withdrawn.
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 and 22 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 determine that the virtual currency data including the virtual currency encryption data is authentic as a result of the virtual currency encryption data being successfully decrypted with the decryption unit, and, when the virtual currency encryption data is determined to be authentic, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the plaintext 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 determine that the virtual currency data including the virtual currency encryption data is authentic as a result of the virtual currency encryption data being successfully decrypted with the decryption unit, and, when the virtual currency encryption data is determined to be authentic, accept settlement of an amount of money specified by the amount information included in the plaintext 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.
Thus, claims 16, 19 and 22 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights