DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 10/15/25.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are rejected as set forth below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant contends Capkun fails to teach or suggest the network computing device settling the locked collateral cryptocurrency. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Capkun teaches the Arbiter returning, or settling, the locked cryptocurrency after the pending settlements are processed ([0105]).
Applicant contends the combination of Capkun and Mullins is improper because there is no motivation to combine. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mullins to the known invention of Capkun as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such currency exchange features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the real-time cryptocurrency backed payment wherein the merchant computing device accepts a desired fiat currency results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the merchant receives currency of their choice despite the currency being sent by the user, thus improving the overall usability of the invention.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), MPEP § 608.01(o), and MPEP §2181 IV. Correction of the following is required:
The terms 'a real-time payment period' and 'a confirmation time period’ of claims 1, 9.
The Examiner notes that the USPTO’ Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has recently recognized that the lack of antecedent basis of claim terms in the original specification as a “significant problem.” See 73 Fed. Reg. 32944 (June 10, 2008) (noting that “[o]ne significant problem faced by the Board under Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v) occurs when the language of a claim does not have direct antecedent language in the specification.").
Additionally, the Examiner notes that patent examiners have no authority to waive the provisions of a rule. See In re Goodman, 3 USPQ2d 1866, 1871 (ComrPats 1987) (noting the examiners have no authority to waive 37 C.F.R. §1.111(b)).
Because the lack of antecedent basis is currently recognized by the USPTO as a significant problem and because the Examiner has no authority to waive the provisions of a rule, correction of the noted objections to the specification under 37 C.F.R. §1.75(d)(1) is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11238444 in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070022058 to Labrou.
‘444 does not explicitly teach, but Labrou teaches:
providing, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information to a user computing device to initiate a payment with the user computing device; (Fig 8, [0119]-[0121], “The POS 103 generates a local message via a short-range communication 210 to the phone 104, called the T-Info that contains the transaction ID, the amount and the POS ID. The customer starts the mobile POS application 109. The phone 104 receives the local message from the POS 103 and decodes the data. The user is asked to approve the transaction by entering the PIN. The Phone 104 generates a C-View message 402 containing a full UPTF message for the transaction. The phone sends the C-View message 402 via the cellular network 211 to the STS 120.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Labrou to the known invention of ‘444 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cryptography features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to provide, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information, such as real-time cryptocurrency backed payment information, to a user computing device to initiate a payment, such as a real-time cryptocurrency backed payment, with the user computing device, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that both the user and the merchant are verified and can be trusted before initiating payment, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 10-14 of copending Application No. 17/364,366 in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070022058 to Labrou.
‘366 does not explicitly teach, but Labrou teaches:
providing, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information to a user computing device to initiate a payment with the user computing device; (Fig 8, [0119]-[0121], “The POS 103 generates a local message via a short-range communication 210 to the phone 104, called the T-Info that contains the transaction ID, the amount and the POS ID. The customer starts the mobile POS application 109. The phone 104 receives the local message from the POS 103 and decodes the data. The user is asked to approve the transaction by entering the PIN. The Phone 104 generates a C-View message 402 containing a full UPTF message for the transaction. The phone sends the C-View message 402 via the cellular network 211 to the STS 120.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Labrou to the known invention of ‘366 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cryptography features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to provide, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information, such as real-time cryptocurrency backed payment information, to a user computing device to initiate a payment, such as a real-time cryptocurrency backed payment, with the user computing device, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that both the user and the merchant are verified and can be trusted before initiating payment, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 17/305,114 in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070022058 to Labrou.
‘114 does not explicitly teach, but Labrou teaches:
providing, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information to a user computing device to initiate a payment with the user computing device; (Fig 8, [0119]-[0121], “The POS 103 generates a local message via a short-range communication 210 to the phone 104, called the T-Info that contains the transaction ID, the amount and the POS ID. The customer starts the mobile POS application 109. The phone 104 receives the local message from the POS 103 and decodes the data. The user is asked to approve the transaction by entering the PIN. The Phone 104 generates a C-View message 402 containing a full UPTF message for the transaction. The phone sends the C-View message 402 via the cellular network 211 to the STS 120.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Labrou to the known invention of ‘114 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cryptography features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to provide, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information, such as real-time cryptocurrency backed payment information, to a user computing device to initiate a payment, such as a real-time cryptocurrency backed payment, with the user computing device, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that both the user and the merchant are verified and can be trusted before initiating payment, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-18, 20 of copending Application No. 17/305,154 in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070022058 to Labrou.
‘154 does not explicitly teach, but Labrou teaches:
providing, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information to a user computing device to initiate a payment with the user computing device; (Fig 8, [0119]-[0121], “The POS 103 generates a local message via a short-range communication 210 to the phone 104, called the T-Info that contains the transaction ID, the amount and the POS ID. The customer starts the mobile POS application 109. The phone 104 receives the local message from the POS 103 and decodes the data. The user is asked to approve the transaction by entering the PIN. The Phone 104 generates a C-View message 402 containing a full UPTF message for the transaction. The phone sends the C-View message 402 via the cellular network 211 to the STS 120.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Labrou to the known invention of ‘154 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cryptography features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to provide, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information, such as real-time cryptocurrency backed payment information, to a user computing device to initiate a payment, such as a real-time cryptocurrency backed payment, with the user computing device, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that both the user and the merchant are verified and can be trusted before initiating payment, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1, 9, the limitations “wherein the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment includes a real-time payment period and a confirmation time period", “instantly providing, by the network computing device, an amount of the desired fiat currency to the merchant computing device within the real-time payment period via an off-chain transaction”, “after the confirmation time period: settling, by the network computing device, the cryptocurrency backed payment” fail to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not disclose the claimed function of a predetermined real-time payment period and a predetermined confirmation time period. There is no mention of predetermining the time periods in the Specification. See MPEP 2163.
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6, 8-14, 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 9, the limitations “wherein the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment includes a real-time payment period and a confirmation time period", “instantly providing, by the network computing device, an amount of the desired fiat currency to the merchant computing device within the real-time payment period via an off-chain transaction” render the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment can include a predetermined real-time payment period if the fiat currency is provided to the merchant within, or have a duration less than, the predetermined real-time payment period. That is, it is not possible for the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment to be 10 seconds, assuming a predetermined 5 second real-time payment period and a predetermined 5 second confirmation time period, if the time it took for the fiat currency to be provided to the merchant is less than 5 seconds, since the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment is comprised of the duration of the fiat currency payment. For purposes of examination, the real-time payment period and the confirmation time period will be interpreted as time periods that are not predetermined but time periods that represent the time it takes to perform the actions corresponding to the time periods.
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
As per claims 1, 9, the limitation “instantly providing, by the network computing device, an amount of the desired fiat currency to the merchant computing device within the real-time payment period via an off-chain transaction” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the fiat currency can be instantly provided to the merchant if it is allowed to be executed within a time period, wherein the time period is longer than instantly, or immediately.
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
As per claims 1, 9, the limitations “wherein the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment includes a real-time payment period and a confirmation time period", “after the confirmation time period: settling, by the network computing device, the cryptocurrency backed payment” render the scope of the claim indefinite. The claim provides no context regarding the confirmation time period and what it represents. For purposes of examination, the confirmation time period will be interpreted as the time it takes to confirm the cryptocurrency transaction onto the blockchain.
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
As per claim 1, the limitation “when receipt of an amount of the first cryptocurrency from the user computing device to cover the real-time cryptocurrency backed payment is confirmed by the network computing device” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because the underlined term lacks antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of a real-time cryptocurrency backed payment.
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021048056 to Capkun in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070022058 to Labrou, United States Patent No. 11423398 to Mullins, and United States Patent Application Publication No. 20190378115 to Hamilton.
As per claims 1, 9, Capkun teaches:
A method comprising: initiating, by a user computing device of a cryptocurrency collateral system, a payment with a merchant computing device of the cryptocurrency collateral system, wherein the user computing device provides a first cryptocurrency to use in the cryptocurrency backed payment, ([0015], “According to the invention, these aims are achieved by means of a data processing and telecommunication system for executing transactions, wherein the system includes a decentralized blockchain operable as a ledger for storing transactions between a merchant and a customer, a plurality of customer devices and a plurality of merchant devices all operable to communicate over the communication system, and a storage and computational module operable as an Arbiter for executing smart contracts, each customer devices being operable to cause a customer collateral to be controlled by said Arbiter, each customer device being further operable to send an intent to a merchant device, the merchant devices being programmed to execute the transaction after a verification of the customer collateral deposited by a customer having sent such an intent, but before the corresponding transaction is stored in said blockchain, each customer device being further operable to send to said Arbiter a transaction, the merchant devices being further arranged for storing accepted transactions to said blockchain, the smart contract being programmed for forwarding the value of the transaction to the merchant once the transaction is added to the blockchain respectively for recovering that value from the customer’s collateral if a pending transaction does not get stored on the blockchain.”)
facilitating, by a network computing device of the cryptocurrency collateral system, locking an amount of collateral cryptocurrency of a pool of stored collateral cryptocurrency required to back the cryptocurrency backed payment such that the network computing device has control over the amount of the collateral cryptocurrency for the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment; ([0015], “a storage and computational module operable as an Arbiter for executing smart contracts, each customer devices being operable to cause a customer collateral to be controlled by said Arbiter”; [0035]-[0036], “In one preferred embodiment, the collaterals cover all of the authorized customer's purchases. In another embodiment, at least some customers, for example customers with good reputation or who have been honest for years, are allowed to spend more than their collaterals.”)
wherein the duration of the cryptocurrency backed payment includes a payment period and a confirmation time period; providing, by the network computing device, an amount of the desired currency to the merchant computing device within the payment period; after the confirmation time period: settling, by the network computing device, the cryptocurrency backed payment, wherein the settling includes one of: when receipt of an amount of the first cryptocurrency from the user computing device to cover the cryptocurrency backed payment is confirmed by the network computing device: releasing, by the network computing device, the amount of the collateral cryptocurrency such that the network computing device no longer has control over the amount of the collateral cryptocurrency; or when receipt of the amount of the first cryptocurrency is not confirmed: storing, by the network computing device, the amount of the collateral cryptocurrency. ([0015], “the smart contract being programmed for forwarding the value of the transaction to the merchant”; [0062], “According to one aspect, customer collaterals are held by a smart contract stored in and executed by the Blockchain. This smart contract is called Arbiter and enable merchants to safely accept payments before a transaction reaches finality on the chain. If a pending transaction does not get confirmed on the chain (for example in case of double spending attack), the victim merchant can recover the lost funds from the customer’s collateral.”; [0079], “A payment from a customer device is initially routed to the account controlled by the Arbiter that logs the approval details into its state and after that forwards the payment value to the account of the receiving merchant device.”; [0083]-[0084], “In this section, we describe the method in detail. We instantiate it for Ethereum, but emphasize that the invention is not limited to this particular blockchain. We start with background on aggregate signatures, followed by data structures, registration, payment and settlement protocols. Transactions are preferably signed with the Boneh- Lynn- Shacham (BLS) Signature Scheme. BLS signatures are built on top of a bilinear group and a cryptographic hash function H {0, 1}.sup.* — > G.”; [0105], “The process is carried out in two steps, first by clearing the customer’s pending transactions and subsequently by returning any remaining collateral. This two-step process allows enough time for any pending settlements to be processed before the collateral is returned to the customer.”; The Examiner notes that the time it takes for the payment to be routed from the customer to the Arbiter is the payment period and the time it takes for the transaction to be signed and recorded on the blockchain is the confirmation time period.)
Capkun does not explicitly teach, but Labrou teaches:
providing, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information to a user computing device to initiate a payment with the user computing device; (Fig 8, [0119]-[0121], “The POS 103 generates a local message via a short-range communication 210 to the phone 104, called the T-Info that contains the transaction ID, the amount and the POS ID. The customer starts the mobile POS application 109. The phone 104 receives the local message from the POS 103 and decodes the data. The user is asked to approve the transaction by entering the PIN. The Phone 104 generates a C-View message 402 containing a full UPTF message for the transaction. The phone sends the C-View message 402 via the cellular network 211 to the STS 120.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Labrou to the known invention of Capkun would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cryptography features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to provide, by a merchant computing device, a code representative of payment information, such as real-time cryptocurrency backed payment information, to a user computing device to initiate a payment, such as a real-time cryptocurrency backed payment, with the user computing device, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that both the user and the merchant are verified and can be trusted before initiating payment, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Capkun as modified does not explicitly teach, but Mullins teaches:
wherein the merchant computing device accepts a desired fiat currency via an off-chain transaction; (col 7 lines 27-34, “According to an implementation of the present subject matter, the customers and merchants may send and receive payments in virtual currencies via the payment service for purchase of items or a selected set of items. In another implementation, the customers send payments in virtual currencies via the payment service, while the payment service converts a first virtual currency into another virtual currency or a fiat currency of merchant's choice.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mullins to the known invention of Capkun as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such currency exchange features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the real-time cryptocurrency backed payment wherein the merchant computing device accepts a desired fiat currency results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the merchant receives currency of their choice despite the currency being sent by the user, thus improving the overall usability of the invention.
Capkun as modified does not explicitly teach, but Hamilton teaches:
instantly providing, by the network computing device, an amount of the desired currency to the merchant computing device; ([0034], “The transfer step 36 takes place instantaneously, and directly between the account holder's mobile phone and the retailer's point of sale reader. This is in contrast to conventional electronic payment systems, where the transaction is first reported to a credit card provider (for example) and then a number of weeks later the retailer is sent the funds from the credit card provider. Therefore, the cash flow of the retailer is improved.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Hamilton to the known invention of Capkun as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such funds transfer features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the step of providing, by the network computing device, an amount of the desired currency to the merchant computing device to complete the real-time cryptocurrency backed payment so the desired currency is instantly provided to the merchant results in an improved invention because applying said technique improves the cash flow of the retailer and also removes the possibility of the retailer experiencing a charge back payment denial, thus improving the overall usability of the invention.
As per claims 2, 10¸ Capkun teaches:
wherein the user computing device stores the first cryptocurrency in a digital wallet associated with the network computing device. ([0015])
As per claims 3, 11¸ Capkun teaches:
wherein the merchant computing device is associated with the network computing device; ([0015], The merchant computing device interacts and communicates with the network computing device.)
As per claims 4, 12¸ Capkun teaches:
wherein the network computing device determines the amount of the collateral cryptocurrency based on one or more of: characteristics of the cryptocurrency backed payment; characteristics of the user computing device; characteristics of the merchant computing device; and characteristics of the collateral cryptocurrency. ([0035]-[0036])
As per claims 5, 13¸ Labrou teaches:
when the user computing device does not verify the code representative of the payment information: terminating, by the network computing device, the initiation of the payment. ([0032]-[0033], If user authentication is not completed, the payment transaction never occurs.)
As per claims 6, 14¸ Capkun teaches:
sending, by the network computing device, the amount of the desired currency to a merchant banking computing device associated with the merchant computing device for deposit therein. (col 5 lines 30-47, “Generally, when a customer and a merchant enter into an electronic payment transaction, the transaction is processed by electronically transferring funds from a financial account associated with the customer to a financial account associated with the merchant. As such, the payment processing service 126 may communicate with one or more computing devices of a payment card network 140 (or “card payment network”), e.g., MasterCard®, VISA®, over network(s) 110 to conduct financial transactions electronically. Payment processing service 126 may also communicate with one or more computing devices of one or more banks, processing/acquiring services, or the like over the network 110. For example, payment processing service 126 may communicate with an acquiring bank, and/or an issuing bank, and/or a bank maintaining customer accounts for electronic payments. Payment processing service 126 may also communicate with, or access customer and merchant accounts maintained by payment service 108.”)
As per claims 8, 16¸ Capkun teaches:
wherein the user computing device stores collateral cryptocurrency for backing cryptocurrency backed payments in a smart contract associated with the network computing device. ([0015])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20210090166 to Bayne discloses a system and method to provide for acquiring a cryptocurrency via an exchange. A cryptocurrency owner's financial transaction is completed by another in exchange for an amount of cryptocurrency equal to the cost of completing the financial transaction, plus a premium, when the financial transaction cannot be paid for using the cryptocurrency owner's cryptocurrency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached on (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619