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
Applicant filed an amendment on November 10, 2025. Claims 1-30 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 14-18, 20, 22, 25, and 30 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claims 2-12 and 27-29 remaining canceled. Claims 1 and 30 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claim 1. Thus claims 1, 13-26, and 30 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transmitting, by unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, …” should read “transmitting, by the unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, …”.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transmitting via the unidirectional transmitter, … first value which has been define for the at least one transaction prior to transmitting, …” should read “transmitting via the unidirectional transmitter, … first value which has been defined for the at least one transaction prior to transmitting, …”.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully submits that “claim 1 is (1) not directed to an abstract idea, (2) does not fall under “methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions, (3) integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application; the claims are patent eligible for at least the following reasons: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A and (2) the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any exception itself under Step 2B; the Examiner erroneously concludes that the claimed operations can be reasonably understood as “certain methods of organizing human activity” and that the invention is directed to such abstract idea; the claims may involve an abstract idea but are NOT directed to an abstract idea; for a skilled person it will be apparent that there is no attempt to improve transferring of funds from commercial point of view, but to conduct transferring of funds in a way that will protect the device from being exposed to cyberattacks, thereby improving its immunity against network-based attacks, this is clearly a technical improvement and not a commercial process improvement; the claimed invention may involve an abstract idea but it does not recite an abstract idea, and it actually integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application due to the technical improvement to the functionality of the wallet device; the claimed invention of Claim 1 does not merely apply a commercial concept to a well-known computer that only conduct processing and does not also require specific programming, but in the claimed invention a technological non-conventional operation and involvement of various technical elements that work in combination to solve a technical problem to protect a wallet device against network-based cyberattacks; an alleged abstract idea may be involved in the claimed method, it is not merely a processor processing data; the claim requires operation and structure which are not common and are unique in order to provide the technical ability to protect the wallet device against cyberattacks; it does not merely apply a commercial concept to a well-known computer that only conduct processing and does not also require specific programming; the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea of “transferring currency between accounts” but involves this concept, but this alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application due to the improvement in the technical operation of the device; claimed invention is clear in claiming unique and innovative technical solution to the problem of how to protect a cryptocurrency wallet device from potential network based malicious attacks conducted through the communication network while the transactions to recipients are being held; the claimed invention provides a technical solution that allows the originating device (the cryptocurrency wallet device) to be protected against such network-based attacks by not being operable, accessible or connected to the network during the time the transaction to the recipient occurs; Claim 1 recites significantly more than any abstract idea, and when considered as a whole, it is clear that the claimed elements provide a unique and non-conventional interoperability of a multiplicity of devices and systems working in concert and in specific and critical order, in strict timing restrictions; the claim cannot possibly be construed as well-understood, routine, and conventional in this art; following BASCOM, in the claimed invention, while individual elements may be well-understood, routine, and conventional, the order combination of elements provides an unconventional technical solution to the technical problem of protecting a cryptocurrency wallet device against cyberattacks; similar to Example 35, Claim 2 from the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, our claim presents a specific method of protecting a cryptocurrency wallet device against network-based attacks, using a particular arrangement of technological components and steps; and the claimed invention is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20220051240 A1, para 1), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘240 A1, para 1), discloses that the invention generally relates to transferring funds from a wallet, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the method limitations, “creating, by at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device having a unidirectional transmitter, at least one provisional account allocated for at least one recipient; transmitting, by the unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, to a plurality of networked computing nodes maintaining a blockchain, at least one transaction transferring an amount of cryptocurrency with a first value which has been defined for the at least one transaction prior to the transmitting, from an origin account associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device to the at least one provisional account, wherein the at least one transaction is recorded in the blockchain by one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes; generating and signing, by the at least one processor of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, using a private cryptographic key uniquely associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, a plurality of transactions, each of the transactions is for transferring an amount of cryptocurrency with a respective second value which is a partial value of the first value, from the at least one provisional account to at least one receiving account associated with the at least one recipient, wherein a sum of the respective second values does not exceed the first value; transmitting, by unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, the plurality of signed transactions to a network connected cryptocurrency wallet device, wherein the signed transactions are not recorded in the blockchain by the one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes; and storing the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device in a remote secured location without an access to said network; wherein the network connected cryptocurrency wallet device subsequently transfers cryptocurrency in real-time from the at least one provisional account to the at least one receiving account by transmitting at least one of the plurality of signed transactions while the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device is protected against network based malicious attacks by at least one of: (1) having transmit-only network connectivity, when connected to a network, and (2) and/or having no network connectivity when being stored in the remote secured location”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device having a unidirectional transmitter”, “transmitting, by the unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, to a plurality of networked computing nodes maintaining a blockchain”, “cryptocurrency”, “in the blockchain by one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, “the at least one processor of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, using a private cryptographic key uniquely associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device”, “transmitting, by unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, the plurality of signed transactions to a network connected cryptocurrency wallet device, wherein the signed transactions are not recorded in the blockchain by the one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, and “the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device is protected against network based malicious attacks by at least one of: (1) having transmit-only network connectivity, when connected to a network, and (2) and/or having no network connectivity when being stored in the remote secured location”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts.” The claim is not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the method for “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “transferring currency between accounts,” it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a transferring currency from a wallet to accounts concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 30 also recites the abstract idea of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts”, as well as the additional elements of “a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device storing cryptocurrency”, “a unidirectional transmitter”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform the operations of: …”, “transmitting via the unidirectional transmitter, to a plurality of networked computing nodes maintaining a blockchain”, “cryptocurrency”, “the blockchain by one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, “transmitting via the unidirectional transmitter, the plurality of signed transactions to a network connected cryptocurrency wallet device, wherein the signed transactions are not recorded in the blockchain by the one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, and “while the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device is protected against network based malicious attacks by at least one of: (1) having transmit-only network connectivity, when connected to a network, and (2) having no network connectivity when being stored in a remote secured location after said transmitting”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “non-transitory storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 30 is non-statutory.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 13-26, and 30 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, claims 1 and 13-26 are directed to “a method”; and claim 30 is directed to “a device.” Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts” which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” in prong one of step 2A. Claim 1 recites the method limitations, “creating, by at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device having a unidirectional transmitter, at least one provisional account allocated for at least one recipient; transmitting, by the unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, to a plurality of networked computing nodes maintaining a blockchain, at least one transaction transferring an amount of cryptocurrency with a first value which has been defined for the at least one transaction prior to the transmitting, from an origin account associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device to the at least one provisional account, wherein the at least one transaction is recorded in the blockchain by one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes; generating and signing, by the at least one processor of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, using a private cryptographic key uniquely associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, a plurality of transactions, each of the transactions is for transferring an amount of cryptocurrency with a respective second value which is a partial value of the first value, from the at least one provisional account to at least one receiving account associated with the at least one recipient, wherein a sum of the respective second values does not exceed the first value; transmitting, by unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, the plurality of signed transactions to a network connected cryptocurrency wallet device, wherein the signed transactions are not recorded in the blockchain by the one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes; and storing the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device in a remote secured location without an access to said network; wherein the network connected cryptocurrency wallet device subsequently transfers cryptocurrency in real-time from the at least one provisional account to the at least one receiving account by transmitting at least one of the plurality of signed transactions while the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device is protected against network based malicious attacks by at least one of: (1) having transmit-only network connectivity, when connected to a network, and (2) and/or having no network connectivity when being stored in the remote secured location”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device having a unidirectional transmitter”, “transmitting, by the unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, to a plurality of networked computing nodes maintaining a blockchain”, “cryptocurrency”, “in the blockchain by one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, “the at least one processor of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, using a private cryptographic key uniquely associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device”, “transmitting, by unidirectional transmitter of the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, the plurality of signed transactions to a network connected cryptocurrency wallet device, wherein the signed transactions are not recorded in the blockchain by the one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, and “the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device is protected against network based malicious attacks by at least one of: (1) having transmit-only network connectivity, when connected to a network, and (2) and/or having no network connectivity when being stored in the remote secured location”, do not improve computers or computer technology, and represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describes the concept of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “a blockchain”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 30 also recites the abstract idea of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts”, as well as the additional elements of “a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device storing cryptocurrency”, “a unidirectional transmitter”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform the operations of: …”, “transmitting via the unidirectional transmitter, to a plurality of networked computing nodes maintaining a blockchain”, “cryptocurrency”, “the blockchain by one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, “transmitting via the unidirectional transmitter, the plurality of signed transactions to a network connected cryptocurrency wallet device, wherein the signed transactions are not recorded in the blockchain by the one or more of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, and “while the limited access cryptocurrency wallet device is protected against network based malicious attacks by at least one of: (1) having transmit-only network connectivity, when connected to a network, and (2) having no network connectivity when being stored in
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “non-transitory storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 30 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 13-26 further describe the abstract idea of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 and 30.
Dependent claims 13, 15-19, and 21-25 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring currency from a wallet to accounts”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claim 14 recite a new additional element of “cryptocurrency is an account based cryptocurrency”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 20 recite new additional elements of “cryptocurrency is a transaction based cryptocurrency (UTXO)” and “a hierarchical Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 26 recite a new additional element of “another limited access cryptocurrency wallet device”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claims 1, 13-26, and 30 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Holland et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200027080 A1) – Scalable Reconciliation Of Crypto Assets In A Blockchain Network
Holland recites a technique for scalable reconciliation of a plurality of crypto assets between an offline wallet and an online wallet in a blockchain network. The technique includes receiving a request for reconciliation of a plurality of transactions from a trading platform; triggering the blockchain network to generate a smart contract, wherein the smart contract comprises information indicative of a quantity of the plurality of crypto assets to be shifted between the offline wallet and the online wallet; and reconciling the plurality of crypto assets between the offline wallet and the online wallet based on the generated smart contract and a public address, wherein the reconciling comprises transferring by the blockchain network a predefined number of a plurality of packets containing at least one of: a first part of a private multi-signature key and a second part of the multi-signature private key.
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 STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692