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 August 04, 2025. Claims 1-14 were pending in the Application. Claim 1 is amended. No new claims have been added. Applicant selected Species I: Claims 1 and 4-8, and canceled claims 7-8, which remain canceled, in the election/restrictions paragraph 3 of the Non-Final Office Action rejection dated May 02, 2025, and with claims 2-3 and 9-14 being withdrawn from consideration. Thus claims 1 and 4-6 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraphs 5-6 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated May 02, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended and/or arguments are not persuasive to render the Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, moot. Claim 1 (paragraph 5) recites “a first memory having a portion of a blockchain application stored therein, …, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: implement user verification …; generate a blockchain event …; determine that a user …; determine whether the user incurs …; register a cost basis …; deposit a first specified percentage …; deposit a second specific percentage …; … adjust reserves …; detect when the bank account falls below …; … monitor real-time market prices …; implement automated stop-loss orders …; … convert between …; and maintain in the blockchain a running log of events …; provide an API available to the first communication interface …; subscribe to the log of blockchain events, …; with the application queue API module, translates the blockchain event …; and store the standardized data interchange format version …”, which are intended uses of the “processor”. According to the Applicant’s specification, (PG Pub US 20210350366 A1, FIGURE 9, item 908; para 57), it is disclosed such a processor is one or more central processing units to perform any of the processes described herein. As prior art (US 20210232639 A1, paras 64-65) teaches a processor executing a blockchain application, it is sufficient in terms of prior art, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C)
Claim 5 (paragraph 6) recites “The system of claim 4, …, wherein the blockchain application, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: generate a cryptocurrency …; determine that the user has purchased a portion of the cryptocurrency …; and deposit a specified percentage of the purchase of the cryptocurrency …” are intended uses of the “processor”. The “processor” is executing a blockchain application to perform the functions of “generate, determine, and deposit.” Therefore according to the Applicant’s specification, (PG Pub US 20210350366 A1, FIGURE 9, item 908; para 57), it is disclosed such a processor is one or more central processing units to perform any of the processes described herein. As prior art (US 20210232639 A1, paras 64-65) teaches a processor executing a blockchain application, it is sufficient in terms of prior art, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C). Examiner hereby maintains the Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraphs 5-6 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated May 02, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant, without addressing the propriety of the rejections and to expedite prosecution, has amended the independent claim. Applicant failed to provide any arguments for the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, and is of the opinion that the claims are statutory.
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 20210350366 A1, para 4), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘366 A1, para 4), discloses that the invention generally relates to technology for processing a real-time resource transfer, 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 limitations of “implement user verification comprising anti-money laundering (AML) … and know your client (KYC) … before allowing … purchases; generate a … event related to security-backed … transactions and the users banking account details, wherein the … is backed by a predetermined portfolio of tradable securities S&P 500 stocks; determine that a user has purchased a portion of the security-backed …; determine whether the user incurs a transaction fee based on whether the user is within an applicable …, and execute a contract for the … purchase accordingly; register a cost basis of underlying equity plus fees for each … purchase; deposit a first specified percentage comprising ten percent of the … purchase as liquid reserves in a bank account; deposit a second specific percentage comprising ninety percent of the … purchase in equity markets comprising the predetermined portfolio of tradeable securities; automatically adjust reserves by selling equity securities to match … token cost basis when predetermined conditions are met; detect when the bank account falls below a predetermined threshold percentage of net assets and responsively liquidate a specified portion of equity securities to maintain the ten percent to ninety percent ratio; continuously monitor real-time market prices of the backing securities and automatically trigger trading operations when predetermined price thresholds are exceeded; implement … stop-loss orders that activate when prices of backing equity securities fall below their cost basis, wherein the stop-loss orders automatically sell the equity securities at current market prices and transfer equivalent … value to users; automatically convert between … values and fiat currency equivalents based on current market prices of the backing securities; and maintain in the … a running log of events comprising the … event related to security-backed … transactions and equity trading operations; provide an … available to the first communication … of the first entity … comprising the … for processing security-backed … transactions; subscribe to the log of … events related security-backed … transactions and equity trading operations, via the first communication …; with the … queue …, translates the … event into a standardized data interchange format version of the … event; and store the standardized data interchange format version of the … event accessible by an external …; wherein the … implements a consensus algorithm selected from proof-of-work, proof-of-authority, or proof-of-stake that validates security-backed … transactions, and wherein the … further comprises an automated equity trading … that executes buy and sell orders for the backing securities based on … transaction volumes and maintains the predetermined portfolio composition”, which represent the abstract idea of “processing a real-time resource transfer.” (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 “a system”, “distributed ledger technology”, “a first entity node”, “a first processor”, “a first communication interface”, “a first memory”, “a blockchain application”, “a blockchain”, “the processor”, “anti-money laundering (AML) systems”, “know your client (KYC) systems”, “cryptocurrency purchases”, “a blockchain event”, “security-backed cryptocurrency transactions”, “cryptocurrency”, “cryptocurrency token”, “automated stop-loss orders”, “an API”, “the application queue API module”, “an external computing entity”, “an automated equity trading desk”, and “cryptocurrency transaction volumes”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 “processing a real-time resource transfer”.
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, “processing a real-time resource transfer”, 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 cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 “processing a real-time resource transfer.” The claims are not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the abstract idea for processing a real-time resource transfer. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “processing a real-time resource transfer”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a processing a real-time resource transfer concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Finally, 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.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, for paragraph 14 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated May 02, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, moot. Claim 1 recites “a first memory … when executed by the processor …” and “with the application queue API module, translates …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the processor” and for “the application queue API module”, respectively. (MPEP § 2173.05 (e)). Examiner hereby maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, paragraph 14 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated May 02, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, for paragraph 15 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated May 02, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 5 recites “…, wherein when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: generate a cryptocurrency, wherein the cryptocurrency is generated by a specified block-chain system.” It is not clear whether the cryptocurrency is generated by “the processor” or “a specified block-chain system” or some combination thereof. If the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. Therefore, the scope of claim 5 is unclear. Dependent claim 6, which depends from claim 5 is also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Examiner hereby maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 15 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated May 02, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, for paragraphs 16-21 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated March 02, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 moot. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the limitations of claim 1 “implement user verification …; generate a blockchain event …; determine that a user …; determine whether the user incurs …; register a cost basis …; deposit a first specified percentage …; deposit a second specific percentage …; … adjust reserves …; detect when the bank account falls below …; … monitor real-time market prices …; implement automated stop-loss orders …; … convert …; and maintain in the blockchain a running log of events …; provide an API available to the first communication interface …; subscribe to the log of blockchain events, …; with the application queue API module, translates the blockchain event …; and store the standardized data interchange format version …” these merely represent the intended uses of the “processor,” and it has been held that they will not differentiate (MPEP § 2114 IV) the claim from the prior art. Therefore, as P teaches the claimed structure of a system for processing a real-time resource transfer using distributed ledger technology, a first entity node, a first processor, a first communication interface, and a first memory, it is therefore sufficient in terms of prior art”, these merely represent the intended uses of the processor in claim 1, and it has been held that they will not differentiate (MPEP § 2114 IV) the claims from the prior art. As P teaches the claimed structure of a system for processing a real-time resource transfer using distributed ledger technology, a first entity node, a first processor, a first communication interface, and a first memory in claim 1, it is therefore, sufficient in terms of prior art. Dependent claims 4-6, which depend from claim 1, are similarly rejected. Examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated May 02, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended and/or arguments are persuasive to overcome the current record of art and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record do not disclose, suggest, and/or teach each and every feature of the claimed invention. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation – Intended Use
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “a first memory having a portion of a blockchain application stored therein, …, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: implement user verification …; generate a blockchain event …; determine that a user …; determine whether the user incurs …; register a cost basis …; deposit a first specified percentage …; deposit a second specific percentage …; … adjust reserves …; detect when the bank account falls below …; … monitor real-time market prices …; implement automated stop-loss orders …; … convert …; and maintain in the blockchain a running log of events …; provide an API available to the first communication interface …; subscribe to the log of blockchain events, …; with the application queue API module, translates the blockchain event …; and store the standardized data interchange format version …” are intended uses of the “processor”. According to the Applicant’s specification, (PG Pub US 20210350366 A1, FIGURE 9, item 908; para 57), it is disclosed such a processor is one or more central processing units to perform any of the processes described herein. As prior art (US 20210232639 A1, paras 64-65) teaches a processor executing a blockchain application, it is sufficient in terms of prior art, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “implement automated stop-loss orders that activate when prices of backing equities fall below their cost basis, …” is an intended use of the “stop-loss orders”. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “provide an API … comprising the blockchain for processing …” is an intended use of an “API”. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “wherein the blockchain application implements a consensus algorithm … that validates …” is an intended use of a “consensus algorithm”. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “wherein the system comprises an automated equity trading desk that executes … and maintains …” are intended uses of an “automated equity trading desk”. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 5, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “The system of claim 4, …, wherein the blockchain application, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: generate a cryptocurrency …; determine that the user has purchased a portion of the cryptocurrency …; and deposit a specified percentage of the purchase of the cryptocurrency …” are intended uses of the “processor”. The “processor” is executing a blockchain application to perform the functions of “generate, determine, and deposit.” Therefore according to the Applicant’s specification, (PG Pub US 20210350366 A1, FIGURE 9, item 908; para 57), it is disclosed such a processor is one or more central processing units to perform any of the processes described herein. As prior art (US 20210232639 A1, paras 64-65) teaches a processor executing a blockchain application, it is sufficient in terms of prior art, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Claim Interpretation – Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “predetermined portfolio”, “predetermined conditions”, “predetermined threshold”, and “predetermined price”, are nonfunctional descriptive material as there is not a functional relationship between “predetermined” and “portfolio”, “conditions”, “threshold”, and “price”, respectively. To be given patentable weight, “predetermined” and “portfolio”, “conditions”, “threshold”, and “price”, respectively, must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where “predetermined” performs some function with respect to “portfolio”, “conditions”, “threshold”, and “price”, respectively, to which it is associated. (MPEP § 2111.05 I).
Claim Interpretation – Not Positively Recited
In regards to claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation is not positively recited in the claim, and therefore carries limited patentable weight: claim 1: “automatically adjust reserves … when predetermined conditions are met”; “continuously monitor real-time market prices … when predetermined price thresholds are exceeded”; and “implement automated stop-loss orders that activate when prices of backing equity securities fall below their cost basis, …”; which are not positively recited. (“A claim is only limited by positively recited elements …” (MPEP § 2115, see also In re Wilder, 166 USPQ 545 (C.C.P.A. 1970)).
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.
Claim 1 and 4-6 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 4-6 are directed to a “system. Therefore, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “processing a real-time resource transfer”, which is a form of commercial or legal transactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “implement user verification comprising anti-money laundering (AML) … and know your client (KYC) … before allowing … purchases; generate a … event related to security-backed … transactions and the users banking account details, wherein the … is backed by a predetermined portfolio of tradable securities S&P 500 stocks; determine that a user has purchased a portion of the security-backed …; determine whether the user incurs a transaction fee based on whether the user is within an applicable …, and execute a contract for the … purchase accordingly; register a cost basis of underlying equity plus fees for each … purchase; deposit a first specified percentage comprising ten percent of the … purchase as liquid reserves in a bank account; deposit a second specific percentage comprising ninety percent of the … purchase in equity markets comprising the predetermined portfolio of tradeable securities; automatically adjust reserves by selling equity securities to match … token cost basis when predetermined conditions are met; detect when the bank account falls below a predetermined threshold percentage of net assets and responsively liquidate a specified portion of equity securities to maintain the ten percent to ninety percent ratio; continuously monitor real-time market prices of the backing securities and automatically trigger trading operations when predetermined price thresholds are exceeded; implement … stop-loss orders that activate when prices of backing equity securities fall below their cost basis, wherein the stop-loss orders automatically sell the equity securities at current market prices and transfer equivalent … value to users; automatically convert between … values and fiat currency equivalents based on current market prices of the backing securities; and maintain in the … a running log of events comprising the … event related to security-backed … transactions and equity trading operations; provide an … available to the first communication … of the first entity … comprising the … for processing security-backed … transactions; subscribe to the log of … events related security-backed … transactions and equity trading operations, via the first communication …; with the … queue …, translates the … event into a standardized data interchange format version of the … event; and store the standardized data interchange format version of the … event accessible by an external …; wherein the … implements a consensus algorithm selected from proof-of-work, proof-of-authority, or proof-of-stake that validates security-backed … transactions, and wherein the … further comprises an automated equity trading … that executes buy and sell orders for the backing securities based on … transaction volumes and maintains the predetermined portfolio composition. (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 “a system”, “distributed ledger technology”, “a first entity node”, “a first processor”, “a first communication interface”, “a first memory”, “a blockchain application”, “a blockchain”, “the processor”, “anti-money laundering (AML) systems”, “know your client (KYC) systems”, “cryptocurrency purchases”, “a blockchain event”, “security-backed cryptocurrency transactions”, “cryptocurrency”, “cryptocurrency token”, “automated stop-loss orders”, “an API”, the application queue API module”, “an external computing entity”, “an automated equity trading desk”, and “cryptocurrency transaction volumes”, do not improve computers or computer technology, and represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 “processing a real-time resource transfer.”
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, and do no more than implement the abstract idea using a computer. Viewed as a whole, the elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “processing a real-time resource transfer” using computer technology (e.g., “a first processor” and “a first memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, 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.
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of “processing a real-time resource transfer”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the … event comprises a … transfer to a … wallet managed by …” The additional elements of “a blockchain event”, “a cryptocurrency”, “a digital wallet”, and “the external computing entity” do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of “processing a real-time resource transfer”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the … having a stored therein, wherein the … comprises a …comprising a plurality of data records, wherein …, when executed by the …, further causes the … to: generate a …, wherein the … is generated by a specified …; determine that the user has purchased a portion of the …; and deposit a specified percentage of the purchase of the … in a bank account.” The additional elements of “the first memory”, “a blockchain application”, “a blockchain”, the processor”, “a cryptocurrency”, and “a specified block-chain system”, do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claim 6 recites the additional elements of “a cryptocurrency” and “a Bitcoin-based cryptocurrency”, 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Hence, claims 1 and 4-6 are not patent eligible.
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 1 and 4-6 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.
Antecedent Basis
Claim 1 recites “a first memory …, when executed by the processor …” and “with the application queue API module, translates …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the processor” and for “the application queue API module”, respectively. (MPEP § 2173.05 (e)).
Unclear Scope
Claim 5 recites “…, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: generate a cryptocurrency, wherein the cryptocurrency is generated by a specified block-chain system.” It is not clear whether the cryptocurrency is generated by “the processor” or “a specified block-chain system” or some combination thereof. If the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. Therefore, the scope of claim 5 is unclear. Dependent claim 6, which depends from claim 5 is also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by P, U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210232639 A1.
Regarding claim 1, P discloses a system (FIG. 1, item 100; para 44) for processing a real-time resource transfer using distributed ledger technology (para 2), the system comprising: a first entity node (FIG. 1, item 140; paras 44-46 and 72) comprising:
a first processor (FIG. 8, item 510; para 86);
a first communication interface (paras 43, 45); and
a first memory (FIG. 8, items 520, 530; paras 86-87) having a portion of a blockchain application (paras 64-65) stored therein, wherein the blockchain application comprises a blockchain comprising a plurality of data records, wherein the blockchain application, when executed by the processor (FIG. 8, item 510; para 86), causes the processor to: …
With respect to the limitations “implement user verification …; generate a blockchain event …; determine that a user …; determine whether the user incurs …; register a cost basis …; deposit a first specified percentage …; deposit a second specific percentage …; … adjust reserves …; detect when the bank account falls below …; … monitor real-time market prices …; implement automated stop-loss orders …; … convert …; and maintain in the blockchain a running log of events …; provide an API available to the first communication interface …; subscribe to the log of blockchain events, …; with the application queue API module, translates the blockchain event …; and store the standardized data interchange format version …” these merely represent the intended uses of the “processor,” and it has been held that they will not differentiate (MPEP § 2114 IV) the claim from the prior art. Therefore, as P teaches the claimed structure (FIG. 1, 8, items 100, 140, 510, 520, 530; paras 2, 44-46, 64-65, 72, 86-87), it is therefore sufficient in terms of prior art.
Regarding claim 4, P discloses the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 is further directed to the limitation “generate a blockchain event …” of claim 1, further describing the intended use of the processor in claim 1, and therefore will not differentiate the claim from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 5, P discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Claim 5 is directed to the limitation “the block chain event comprises a cryptocurrency transfer …” of claim 4, which is further directed to the intended use of the processor in claim 1, further describing the intended use of the processor in claim 1, and therefore will not differentiate the claim from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 6, P discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 4-5. Claim 6 is directed to the limitation “generate a cryptocurrency, …” of claim 5, which is further directed to the limitation “the block chain event comprises a cryptocurrency transfer …” of claim 4, which is further directed to the intended use of the processor in claim 1, further describing the intended use of the processor in claim 1, and therefore will not differentiate the claim from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Isaacson et al (U. S. Patent No. 10497037 B2) – System And Method For
Managing Cryptocurrency Payments Via The Payment Request API
Isaacson recites an approach for processing cryptocurrency payments via a payment request application programming interface. A method includes receiving, from a site, at a browser and via the payment request application programming interface, a request associated with a potential purchase, wherein the request includes an identification of a cryptocurrency payment method accepted by the site and transmitting, to the site, from the browser and via the API, data indicating that a user of the browser can pay for the potential purchase via the cryptocurrency payment method accepted by the site. The method includes retrieving via the API cryptocurrency payment information for the potential purchase and populating a cryptocurrency wallet with the cryptocurrency payment information for automatic payment.
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, Calvin L. Hewitt II can be reached (571) 272-6709. 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