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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the response filed 6/13/2025 and the pre-brief appeal 9/5/2025 to reopen prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 11-28 listed below in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brogger (U.S. Patent Pub 2019/0333051) in view of Kundu (U.S. Patent Pub 2019/0370760) and Mol/Molinari (U.S. Patent Pub 2019/0080407) and Ricci (U.S. Patent Pub 2013/0293364)
Re claim 11 & 15: Brogger discloses:
A method for trading cryptocurrencies, the method comprising: receiving, via an input/output interface, a request to trade a cryptocurrency; (see Brogger, Figure 1-4, + abstract + Para 0042-0049)
checking, by a control module of the vehicle based stored or retrieved information relating to local legal provisions for trading cryptocurrencies, whether the request to trade the cryptocurrency complies with the local legal provisions for a current location, (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
wherein the request to trade is transmitted over an internet connection only when the request to trade the cryptocurrency complies with the local legal provisions for a current location (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
further comprising: determining that the vehicle is crossing a border from the destination country to another country; retrieving locally applicable legal provisions for the another country; and replacing the preset local legal provisions with the retrieved locally applicable legal provisions for the another country. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Although Brogger does not have in a vehicle, Ricci claims “In a vehicle” and Kundu and Mol additionally teaches the limitations of the applicant.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Brogger by adapting any features of Ricci and Kundu and Mol.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Brogger and Mol by adapting trading cryptocurrencies is done in a car vehicle of Kundu and Ricci. See Kundu paragraph 0061 and Ricci para 0021. The examiner would also like to note being in a car is simply a design choice and carries little patentable weight. A countries boarders is a legal construct, boarders change and are disputed at times and legal constructs carry little patentable weight.
It is clear that one would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results. Specifically, both Brogger and Kundu and Mol all both relate to same subject area of trading cryptocurrencies. Brogger teaches “legal options” that can be combined with the vehicle cryptocurrency with Molinari blockchain transfer agent.
Specifically Ricci teaches
further comprising: determining that the vehicle is crossing a border from the destination country to another country; retrieving locally applicable legal provisions for the another country; and replacing the preset local legal provisions with the retrieved locally applicable legal provisions for the another country. (see Ricci para 0021)
Mol specifically teaches:
A method for trading cryptocurrencies, the method comprising: receiving, via an input/output interface, a request to trade a cryptocurrency; (see Mol, Figure 1-3, + abstract)
checking, by a control module based stored or retrieved information relating to local legal provisions for trading cryptocurrencies, whether the request to trade the cryptocurrency complies with the local legal provisions for a current location of the vehicle, (see Mol Figure 1-3 + Para 0025-0028, 0108 claim 8)
wherein the request to trade is transmitted over an internet connection only when the request to trade the cryptocurrency complies with the local legal provisions for a current location (see Mol Figure 1-3 + Para 0025-0028, 0108 claim 8)
Kundu specifically teaches:
A method for trading cryptocurrencies, the method comprising: receiving, via an input/output interface, a request to trade a cryptocurrency; (see Kundu Figure 1)
checking, by a control module of the vehicle based stored or retrieved information relating to local legal provisions for trading cryptocurrencies, whether the request to trade the cryptocurrency complies with the local legal provisions for a current location, (see Kundu Figure 2 item 214 + Para 0114)
Re claim 12: see claim 1 +
further comprising: retrieving, via a communication unit of the vehicle, the local legal provisions for the current location of the vehicle from a back-end server. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 13: see claim 1 +
the retrieved local legal provisions are stored and are updated responsive to changes in the local legal provisions or when the vehicle crosses a border between countries. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 14: see claim 1 +
wherein the local legal provisions are preset and stored according to a destination country in which the vehicle is delivered. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 16: see claims above +
wherein the communication unit encrypts communications that cannot be read by a user of the vehicle. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 17: see claims above +
wherein the local legal provisions are stored in an encrypted form that cannot be read by a user of the vehicle. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 18: see claims above +
wherein a user of the vehicle is informed of trade that is rejected for not complying with the local legal provisions for a current location of the vehicle. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 19: see claims above +
wherein, responsive to the trade being rejected for not complying with local legal provisions, the method further comprising: determining that the trade complies with local legal provisions for a country neighboring the country in which the vehicle is located; and outputting a route to the country neighboring the country in which the vehicle is located. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 20: see claims above +
wherein, for a user requesting the trade, the user’s trading actions are managed in a personalized manner on a back-end server, wherein the user is informed regarding legal changes to the user’s trading actions. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 21: see claims above +
further comprising: retrieving, via a communication unit of the vehicle, the local legal provisions for the current location of the vehicle from a back-end server, wherein the retrieved local legal provisions are stored and are updated responsive to changes in the local legal provisions or when the vehicle crosses a border between countries. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 22: see claims above +
wherein the local legal provisions are stored in an encrypted form that cannot be read by a user of the vehicle. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 23: see claims above +
wherein a user of the vehicle is informed of trade that is rejected for not complying with the local legal provisions for a current location of the vehicle. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 24: see claims above +
wherein, for a user requesting the trade, the user's trading actions are managed in a personalized manner on a back-end server, wherein the user is informed regarding legal changes to the user's trading actions. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 25: see claims above +
further comprising: retrieving, via a communication unit of the vehicle, the local legal provisions for the current location of the vehicle from a back-end server, wherein the retrieved local legal provisions are stored and are updated responsive to changes in the local legal provisions or when the vehicle crosses a border between countries. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 26: see claims above +
wherein the local legal provisions are stored in an encrypted form that cannot be read by a user of the vehicle. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 27: see claims above +
wherein, for a user requesting the trade, the user's trading actions are managed in a personalized manner on a back-end server, wherein the user is informed regarding legal changes to the user's trading actions. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Re claim 28: see claims above +
wherein the local legal provisions are preset and stored according to a destination country in which the vehicle is delivered. (see Brogger Figure 1-4 + Para 0030-0032)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that record does not support conclusion and basis is unclear interpretation ignore claimed features
The examiner rejects that characterization. The examiner has reject each and every element of the claimed invention not just one but limitation have multiple prior art rejections on the limitation. While the examiner does believe the “in a vehicle” holds little patentable weight she still found art the has the exact limitation so while the examiner remains firm in this view it is irrelevant to argue because each and every element is found in prior art. Applicant argued It is clear that one would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results. Specifically, both Brogger and Kundu and Mol all both relate to same subject area of trading cryptocurrencies. Brogger teaches “legal options” that can be combined with the vehicle cryptocurrency with Molinari blockchain transfer agent. Additionally, Ricci teaches a vehicle cross a boundary and configuring preferences based on the laws. It is clear these elements can be combine together to show the applicants invention.
Applicants also argued, prior art does not teach “a control module of the vehicle” and examiner unclear why holds little patentable weight
The Examiner refutes the argument made by the Applicant. First the argued elements are insignificant and hold little patentable weight. The reason the examiner is saying this is the a country boundary is a legal construct that may change or be disputed and therefore holds little patentable weight. A claimed limitation must be valid and not depend on a war or a dispute between countries. The structure of the claim is what he examiner must review for novelty. Even though the examiner is explaining that this hold little patentable weight the examiner has reviewed it and found prior art for all limitations in full. This limitation is “checking, by a control module of the vehicle” and any computer module would read against this. All the prior art teach this. Kundu also is cryptocurrency with a vehicle and Ricci teaches a vehicle crossing a border and changing software based on the laws. Where a computer part is physically mounted is a design choice and would need to have structural impact to the claims to hold significant patentable weight. The elements and concept of the applicant is show in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Serrano, U.S. Patent Pub 20200184553, discloses a system includes credit network computing device(s) coupled to wallet provider computing device(s) and credit exchange computing device(s). Wallet provider computing device(s) receives credit request for loan having credit terms from borrower; generates smart contract including information regarding borrower and credit terms; and communicates smart contract to credit network computing device(s).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693