DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 9/23/2025. Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 11-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and response to arguments are stated 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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for predicting future currency exchange rates based on currency exchange rates and trading volumes, which is a commercial or legal interaction, i.e. sales activities and business relations, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, bolded below and stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method comprising:
training an artificial intelligence by:
providing a training set of data, the training set of data comprising currency exchange rates and trading volumes; and
training a neural network to predict one or more future currency exchange rates using the training set.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of a “computer-implemented”, “training an artificial intelligence by:” and “training a neural network” in claim 1, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using general-purpose, generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of obtaining, obtaining, providing, receiving, executing, converting, converting and communicating. The artificial intelligence (AI) is software, e.g. machine learning or an algorithm, claimed at a very high level of generality such that it is merely leveraging any type of AI known to perform the abstract idea. The training aspect of the artificial intelligence and the neural network is claimed at a very high level of generality as can be plainly seed in Applicants specification in at least paragraphs [0174], “or by a platform operator”, i.e. human being, paragraphs [0182-0187], “as known in the art” and [0196]. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0079] and [0261]-[0266] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), such as trained neural networks. Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed with artificial intelligence and a neural network communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The artificial intelligence and neural network are software, e.g. an algorithmic model, trained at a very high level of generality programmed on a generic computer processor to execute abstract idea steps and possibly improve the abstract idea.
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements interacting in a fundamental manner to perform the abstract idea of predicting future currency exchange rates based on currency exchange rates and trading volumes, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claim 2 further refines the abstract idea as follows in bold:
obtaining, via a processor of a computing system implementing a currency exchange platform, a commission for currency exchange between an initiator party and a recipient party, the commission comprising transaction data defining a proposed currency conversion transaction: obtaining, via the processor of the currency exchange platform, access to an initiator account under control of the initiator party via one or more API keys to thereby access source funds from the initiator party, the source funds denominated in a source fiat currency providing, via a network, to the initiator party prior to execution of the proposed currency conversion transaction, a notification comprising a predicted currency exchange rate predicted by the neural network receiving, via the network, from the initiator party, subsequent to the receipt by the initiator party of the notification, an instruction to execute the proposed currency conversion transaction executing, via the processor, the proposed currency conversion transaction defined by the commission for currency exchange, said execution comprising: converting, in a first conversion process, the source funds from the source fiat currency to a cryptocurrency and subsequently converting, in a second conversion process, the cryptocurrency to recipient funds denominated in a destination fiat currency; and communicating via the network, by the currency exchange platform with a recipient account under control of the recipient party, to cause transfer of the recipient funds to the recipient account, wherein the currency exchange platform recommends the cryptocurrency based on a combination of the source fiat currency and the destination fiat currency prior to executing the currency conversion transaction.
Other than the mere nominal recitation of a “a processor of a computing system implementing a currency exchange platform” and a “network” this is further refining the abstract idea adding in the abstract concept of currency conversion through automation. These computing components are generic, off-the-shelf processors, see at least Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0079] and [0261]-[0266] of the specification.
Claim 3 further refines the abstract idea by reciting the abstract idea of transferring funds from one account to another. The steps are claimed at a very high level of generality and merely further refine the abstract idea.
Claim 4 further refines the abstract idea by reciting that a second set of data is used to predict future currency exchange rates and receive an output and provide a reward. This is all applied via the additional element neural network.
Claim 5 further refines the abstract idea by defining the information used in the commission, i.e. the contract.
Claim 6 further narrows claim 5 by further defining the type of currency transaction information. The type and specificity of the information does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Claim 7 refines the abstract idea by waiting to execute the first conversion before receiving an instruction from the initiator. There are no technical implementation details as to how this occurs.
Claim 8, at a very high level of generality, further refines the abstract idea by notifying the initiator and requesting the initiator approve the currency conversion transaction.
Claim 9 recites that the notification is generated based on certain business conditions and provides an assessment of the outcome if the currency conversion were executed at a time identified in the notification. This is further refining the abstract idea with nothing significantly more.
Claim 10 recites training the neural network or the artificial intelligence to produce abstract idea outcomes such as recommending a future time to execute the currency conversion based on conversion rates to produce a more beneficial outcome for the initiator party which is part of the abstract idea that certainly existed prior to the advent of computing technology.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for predicting future currency exchange rates based on currency exchange rates and trading volumes) on one or more computers suitably programmed, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for predicting future currency exchange rates based on currency exchange rates and trading volumes) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Remlinger et al. (US 2020/0250750 Al)(Remlinger hereinafter)
Regarding claim 1: Remlinger discloses (Currently Amended) a computer-implemented method (at least claim 1) for user-controlled currency conversion, the method comprising: training an artificial intelligence (at least [0024, “…the artificial intelligence trained volatility prediction engine 246…,”)
by:
providing a training set of data, the training set of data comprising currency exchange rates and trading volumes; (at least [0028], “…the artificial intelligence models may be configured to receive as inputs the encoded data generated based on the technical indicators.”, at least [0031], “…the sentiment analysis engine 244 may be configured to use artificial intelligence trained models to generate volatility signals using as inputs trader type, and trading data of the traders.” and
training a neural network (at least [0032], “the volatility prediction engine 246 may include, but are not limited to, regressive, supervised machine learning models, such as decision trees, neural networks and the like.”) to predict one or more future currency exchange rates using the training set, (at least FIG. 2, element 246, at least FIG.3, element 308, at least [0004], “The method also includes determining, based on the first, second, and the third volatilities, a fourth volatility for the exchange rate at an end of the first time period. The method also includes causing the one or more exchange rates between the first currency and the second currency to be displayed on the graphical user interface.”, at least [0035], at least 0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-10, filed in the Remarks of 9/23/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7 and 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “A claim for training a neural network is eligible according to Example 39 of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's 2019 examples. As noted in Example 39, the method of training a neural network does not recite a judicial exception. Example 39 specifically states that the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations, does not recite a mental process, and does not recite a method of organizing human activity.” and “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended herein, does not include a limitation that could be classified as an abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Example 39 was deemed 101 eligible because no details of the claim could be classified as an abstract idea. However, claim 1 of the instant application recites comprising currency exchange rates and trading volumes; to predict one or more future currency exchange rates using the training set. The data used to perform the abstract idea of predicting future currency rates, which is a business and commerce problem, are applied on an artificial network and neural network programmed on a generic computer. The training aspect of the artificial intelligence and the neural network is claimed at a very high level of generality as can be plainly seen in Applicants specification in at least paragraphs [0174], “or by a platform operator”, i.e. human being, paragraphs [0182-0187], “as known in the art”.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejections above, rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693