Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed on 08/29/2025.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 13-15, filed 08/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that the Lu (CN 108428120A) teaches “matching a redemption request to exchange on digital asset for another” and does not teach “determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate between the first digital asset and a universal digital asset” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McNamara (US 20210192501).
Priority
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a US Application No. 17/449,420 filed on 09/29/2021 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapoor (US 20210035211) in view of McNamara (US 20210192501) in further view of Madhavan (US 20220277276).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 14, Kapoor teaches the digital asset-based interaction computing entity is associated with the computing entity via a digital asset-based interaction interface of the computing entity, and wherein the computing entity is associated with a first jurisdiction (Paragraphs 0015-0017 and 0020 teach when the payer inputs the beneficiary's country, the originating bank computer system may update the user interface for the payer on the payer's computer device to show the currency for the beneficiary's country; for example, the payer's computer device could be a mobile computing device, such as a smartphone, a table computer, a wearable computer, that stores and executes an app that opens a connection to the originating bank computer system and allows the payer to specify the details of the transaction; the originating bank computer system receives the payer's electronic communication initiating the money transfer; the originating bank computer system may then electronically transmit or broadcast a message to execute the transaction to a payment computer network; the computer network is a decentralized, peer-to-peer network that employs distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain (a “DLT network”); the message for the international bank account-to-bank account money transfer transaction according to embodiments of the present invention may include the token identifier for the beneficiary, the transaction amount in the payer's home currency, the beneficiary's country, and a cryptographic key for the originating bank as a signature for the transaction); determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, one or more foreign assets associated with the foreign jurisdiction (Paragraph 0015 teaches the payer could input the amount to be transferred in the payer's currency (as opposed to the beneficiary's currency), and the system would determine the corresponding amount in the beneficiary's currency, as described below; if the beneficiary's phone number is used as the token, and if it includes a country code (e.g., 44 for UK, 81 for Japan, etc.), then the beneficiary country can be determined from the token and prefilled in the message); determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, whether a first digital asset stored by the computing entity is recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction (Paragraph 0021 teaches one or more validator computing nodes in the DLT network can validate the transaction using specific validation rules that are set up for the DLT network to validate such international person-to-person, real-time bank account transfers; a validator computing node can validate the originating bank based on the originating bank's cryptographic key in the block chain message issued by the originating bank computer system and/or based on the beneficiary's token included in the transaction's message, that the beneficiary has a bank account that is registered in the Regional P2P Network 23A of the beneficiary; the validator node can then send a message to the appropriate agent bank at the network address specified in the look up table to query whether the beneficiary has a bank account that is registered in the Regional P2P Network for the beneficiary's country; the validated transaction may then be stored in a block on the blockchain of the network and encrypted with a hash by a computing node (e.g., the validator node) on the DLT network); and when the first digital asset is not recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction: determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the universal digital asset (Paragraph 0024 teaches credits the agent bank's nostro account at the FXP Y units of the second country currency (i.e., the currency of the beneficiary's country)); determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the first digital asset and the digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets based on the first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate, the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the universal digital asset, and an amount of the first digital asset (Paragraph 0023 teaches the transfer at the quoted exchange rate is confirmed; this may involve, first, the originating bank computer system confirming the transfer at the quoted exchange rate; there may be multiple foreign exchange providers on the network from which the originating bank computer system seeks and is provided foreign exchange quotes for the transfer; the originating bank computer system may execute systematic logic that selects the best foreign exchange rate based on parameters such as the best rate offered by the various foreign exchange providers and their ratings; once the originating bank computer system confirms the foreign exchange quote, the originating bank computer system then providing a message with the exchange rate to the payer via the money transfer app that the payer used to initiate the transfer); and providing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, one or more of: the first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate, the digital asset balance in terms of the universal digital asset, the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the universal digital asset, the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the first digital asset, and the digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets to the computing entity via the digital asset-based interaction interface (Paragraph 0024 teaches the originating bank then debits X units of the first country currency from the payer's bank account at the originating bank in real time; similarly the agent bank transfers Y units of second country currency to the beneficiary's bank account at the beneficiary's bank in real time via the Regional P2P Network in the beneficiary's country; finally the originating bank computer system can send confirmation to the payer, via the money transfer app, email, text, etc., that the payment was successful).
However, Kapoor does not explicitly teach when the first digital asset is not recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction: determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate between the first digital asset and a universal digital asset.
McNamara from same or similar field of endeavor teaches when the first digital asset is not recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction: determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate between the first digital asset and a universal digital asset (Paragraphs 0045 and 0047-0048 teach each exchange 130, 180 can process the quote request and return an exchange quote; this exchange quote can comprise the current exchange rate between the respective home medium and the digital currency for each exchange 130, 180; the originating exchange can provide a current exchange quote between U.S. dollars and the digital currency (i.e., universal digital asset), and the destination exchange can provide a current exchange quote between Argentinian pesos and the digital currency (i.e., universal digital asset); once the guaranteed exchange rate is provided to the sending client, the sending client may either authorize the transaction in a specified transaction amount or reject the guaranteed exchange rate; the transaction instructions can cause the originating institution to withdraw the transaction amount in U.S. dollars from the sending user, and transfer the transaction amount to the originating exchange; the originating exchange can convert the originating value medium to the digital currency).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kapoor to incorporate the teachings of McNamara to when the first digital asset is not recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction: determine, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate between the first digital asset and a universal digital asset.
There is motivation to combine McNamara into Kapoor because with the advent of digital currencies and decentralized ledgers, the use of nostro accounts may be largely eliminated, releasing the parked money therein to be deployed by the banking institutions accordingly, as described herein. A computing system is provided herein that implements a cross-medium transaction service by leveraging the use of a digital currency and ledger (e.g., a decentralized, distributed ledger) to replace the need for clearing houses and/or nostro/vostro accounts. This cross-medium transaction system operates to provide on-demand liquidity for cross-medium exchanges such that fund settlements can occur at any time within seconds or fractions of a second, as opposed to several days in the current implementations. As such, the computing system implements real-time gross settlement, and is not limited to banking institutions or currencies, but may rather be implemented for any exchange of value (McNamara Paragraph 0019).
However, the combination of Kapoor and McNamara does not explicitly teach detecting, by a digital asset-based interaction computing entity of a borderless digital asset-based interaction system, presence of a computing entity of the borderless digital asset-based interaction system within a foreign jurisdiction; determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, whether a first digital asset stored by the computing entity is recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction; and when the first digital asset is recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction: dynamically updating, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a digital asset balance in terms of the first digital asset of the digital asset-based interaction interface to an updated digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets.
Madhavan from same or similar field of endeavor teaches detecting, by a digital asset-based interaction computing entity of a borderless digital asset-based interaction system, presence of a computing entity of the borderless digital asset-based interaction system within a foreign jurisdiction (Paragraphs 0054 and 0070-0073 teach the example POS device is a point of sale device at a merchant location in a foreign country at which the customer makes a purchase using the credit card; travel details are received at financial institution server computing device from a customer of the financial institution at customer electronic computing device; a request is received from the customer to allocate money in a local currency for spending while on the trip; the amount of money to be allocated can correspond to an amount that the customer intends to spend while in the foreign country; a collaborative bank is identified in the foreign country; the collaborative bank is one that can establish a collaborative banking relationship with the financial institution; the collaborative banking relationship can permit the credit card of the customer to be used as a forex card in the foreign country; a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is established between the financial institution and the collaborative bank; the terms can include such items as the establishment of a virtual account for the customer at the collaborative bank, a maximum amount of local currency that can be allocated to the virtual account, the settlement date when the collaborative bank is to be reimbursed for payments made via the virtual account, information regarding accessing credit card usage details for the customer from the financial institution, and other items); determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, whether a first digital asset stored by the computing entity is recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction (Paragraphs 0075 teaches a virtual account for the customer is established at the collaborative bank; the virtual account is one that permits the collaborative bank to make payments in the local currency of the foreign country to merchants to pay for items purchased by the customer using the credit card; the virtual account permits credit card transactions of the customer to be processed locally in the foreign country, as if the customer had an actual account at the collaborative bank); and when the first digital asset is recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction: dynamically updating, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a digital asset balance in terms of the first digital asset of the digital asset-based interaction interface to an updated digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets (Paragraphs 0076-0077 and 0079-0081 teach a foreign currency equivalent of the allocated money amount is calculated; the foreign currency equivalent is calculated on a date specified by the customer or the financial institution; the currency exchange rate in effect on that date is the currency exchange rate used for the calculation; a credit limit is established for the customer based on the calculated foreign currency equivalent; the credit limit sets a monetary limit for credit card purchases made by the customer in the foreign country; financial institution server computing device sends the notification of the purchase transaction, which includes details of the purchase transaction, to collaborative bank server computing device; the notification is sent to collaborative bank server computing device because when financial institution server computing device receives the notification, financial institution server computing device checks to see whether a MOU is associated with the credit card; the MOU specifies that the processing of the transaction is to be performed locally at the collaborative bank; financial institution server computing device receives a payment from the customer for purchases made using the credit card in the foreign country; the purchases are received by the settlement date for purchase transactions, as specified in the MOU; financial institution server computing device sends the payment for the purchases to collaborative bank, specifically to collaborative bank server computing device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kapoor and McNamara to incorporate the teachings of Madhavan to detect, by a digital asset-based interaction computing entity of a borderless digital asset-based interaction system, presence of a computing entity of the borderless digital asset-based interaction system within a foreign jurisdiction; determine, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, whether a first digital asset stored by the computing entity is recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction; and when the first digital asset is recognized for use within the foreign jurisdiction: dynamically update, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a digital asset balance in terms of the first digital asset of the digital asset-based interaction interface to an updated digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets.
There is motivation to combine Madhavan into the combination of Kapoor and McNamara because the system provides efficiencies in processing the credit card transactions. Instead of using multiple computer systems in different countries and processing messages and data between these multiple computer systems, the credit card transactions can be processed within the foreign country in which the transactions occur. Therefore, an overall time for processing a credit card transaction is decreased because fewer computer systems are involved. This results in a more efficient processing of global credit card transactions (Madhavan Paragraph 0019).
Regarding Claim 1, Kapoor teaches a method (Paragraph 0011 teaches FIG. 2 is a flow chart of a process that can be performed by the system of FIG. 1 to make the real time, electronic bank transfer).
Regarding Claim 9, Kapoor teaches a borderless digital asset-based interaction system (Paragraph 0011 teaches FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer network or system for transmitting, in real time, money electronically from the bank account of a payer, at an originating bank, to the bank account of another person or entity, the “beneficiary,” at a bank) comprises: a plurality of digital asset exchange entities, wherein a first digital asset exchange entity of the plurality of digital asset exchange entities is associated with the first jurisdiction, and wherein a second digital asset exchange entity of the plurality of digital asset exchange entities is associated with a foreign jurisdiction (Paragraph 0023 teaches there may be multiple foreign exchange providers on the network from which the originating bank computer system seeks and is provided foreign exchange quotes for the transfer; the originating bank computer system may execute systematic logic that selects the best foreign exchange rate based on parameters such as the best rate offered by the various foreign exchange providers and their ratings; once the originating bank computer system confirms the foreign exchange quote, the originating bank computer system then providing a message with the exchange rate to the payer via the money transfer app that the payer used to initiate the transfer).
Regarding Claim 14, Kapoor teaches a non-transitory computer readable memory comprises: a first memory element that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a digital asset-based interaction computing entity of a borderless digital asset-based interaction system (Paragraphs 0063-0064 teach the originating bank, agent bank, the IP2P computer system and foreign exchange provider computer systems can be implemented with one or a network of servers; each such server may comprise one or more processor cores and computer memory for storing software executed by the processor core(s); the program instructions (e.g., software) could be stored in computer memory that is accessible by the processor cores, such as RAM, ROM, processor registers or processor cache, for example).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 15, the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 14 above; however, the combination of does not explicitly teach detecting the presence of the computing entity within the foreign jurisdiction comprises one or more of: determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, that the computing entity is located within the foreign jurisdiction; detection, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, of an initiation of a digital asset-based interaction within the foreign jurisdiction involving the computing entity; obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a computing entity request to update the digital asset balance; interpreting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a computing entity preference; interpreting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a default setting of one or more of the computing entity and the digital asset-based interaction computing entity; recognizing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a time interval; and recognizing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, use of the digital asset-based interaction interface by the computing entity within the foreign jurisdiction.
Madhavan further teaches detecting the presence of the computing entity within the foreign jurisdiction comprises one or more of: determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, that the computing entity is located within the foreign jurisdiction; detection, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, of an initiation of a digital asset-based interaction within the foreign jurisdiction involving the computing entity; obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a computing entity request to update the digital asset balance; interpreting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a computing entity preference; interpreting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a default setting of one or more of the computing entity and the digital asset-based interaction computing entity; recognizing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a time interval; and recognizing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, use of the digital asset-based interaction interface by the computing entity within the foreign jurisdiction (Paragraphs 0037, 0040, and 0054 teach Travel dates—dates and times at which travel to the foreign country is to occur; Date of purchase—a date of the first purchase; the example POS device is a point of sale device at a merchant location in a foreign country at which the customer makes a purchase using the credit card).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan to incorporate the further teachings of Madhavan to detect the presence of the computing entity within the foreign jurisdiction comprises one or more of: determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, that the computing entity is located within the foreign jurisdiction; detection, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, of an initiation of a digital asset-based interaction within the foreign jurisdiction involving the computing entity; obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a computing entity request to update the digital asset balance; interpreting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a computing entity preference; interpreting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a default setting of one or more of the computing entity and the digital asset-based interaction computing entity; recognizing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a time interval; and recognizing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, use of the digital asset-based interaction interface by the computing entity within the foreign jurisdiction.
There is motivation to further combine Madhavan into the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan because of the same reasons listed above for claims 1, 9, and 14.
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 16, the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 14 above; and Kapoor further teaches wherein the digital asset-based interaction involves the computing entity providing the first digital asset and a second computing entity associated with the foreign jurisdiction accepting the one or more foreign assets (Paragraph 0024 teaches to execute the transfer the FXP, in real time, debits the originating bank's nostro account at the FXP X units of the first country currency (i.e., the currency of the payer's country) and credits the agent bank's nostro account at the FXP Y units of the second country currency (i.e., the currency of the beneficiary's country); the originating bank then debits X units of the first country currency from the payer's bank account at the originating bank in real time; similarly the agent bank transfers Y units of second country currency to the beneficiary's bank account at the beneficiary's bank in real time via the Regional P2P Network in the beneficiary's country).
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above; and Kapoor further teaches wherein the determining the first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate comprises: connecting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, to a first digital asset exchange entity associated with the first jurisdiction, wherein the first digital asset exchange entity provides the first digital asset to universal digital asset exchange rate (Paragraphs 0023-0024 teach once the originating bank computer system confirms the foreign exchange quote, the originating bank computer system then providing a message with the exchange rate to the payer via the money transfer app that the payer used to initiate the transfer; assuming the payer confirms the transfer at the quoted exchange rate, the originating bank computer system can update the ledger for the transaction (e.g., add a block) with the agreed-to exchange rate and the payer's and originating bank's confirmation; at this point, the transaction across the three ledgers (originating bank, agent bank, and FXP) becomes immutable and cannot be altered; to execute the transfer the FXP, in real time, debits the originating bank's nostro account at the FXP X units of the first country currency (i.e., the currency of the payer's country)).
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above; and Kapoor further teaches wherein the determining the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the universal digital asset comprises: connecting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, to a second digital asset exchange entity associated with the foreign jurisdiction, wherein the second digital asset exchange entity provides the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the universal digital asset (Paragraphs 0023-0024 teach there may be multiple foreign exchange providers on the network from which the originating bank computer system seeks and is provided foreign exchange quotes for the transfer; the originating bank computer system may execute systematic logic that selects the best foreign exchange rate based on parameters such as the best rate offered by the various foreign exchange providers and their ratings; once the originating bank computer system confirms the foreign exchange quote, the originating bank computer system then providing a message with the exchange rate to the payer via the money transfer app that the payer used to initiate the transfer; assuming the payer confirms the transfer at the quoted exchange rate, the originating bank computer system can update the ledger for the transaction (e.g., add a block) with the agreed-to exchange rate and the payer's and originating bank's confirmation; FXP credits the agent bank's nostro account at the FXP Y units of the second country currency (i.e., the currency of the beneficiary's country); the agent bank transfers Y units of second country currency to the beneficiary's bank account at the beneficiary's bank in real time via the Regional P2P Network in the beneficiary's country).
Regarding Claims 6, 10, and 19, the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1, 9, and 14 above; and Kapoor further teaches wherein the dynamically updating the digital asset balance in terms of the first digital asset to the updated digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets comprises: determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the first digital asset (Paragraphs 0023 and 0055 teach the transfer at the quoted exchange rate is confirmed; first, the originating bank computer system confirming the transfer at the quoted exchange rate; there may be multiple foreign exchange providers on the network from which the originating bank computer system seeks and is provided foreign exchange quotes for the transfer; the originating bank computer system may execute systematic logic that selects the best foreign exchange rate based on parameters such as the best rate offered by the various foreign exchange providers and their ratings; the FX quote provider handler queries its FX rate database to look up the applicable exchange rate given the payer's and beneficiary's currencies; the FX quote provider handler then updates the FX transaction table, by reference to the transaction ID, to show that the FX quote is processed; the FX transaction table may also be updated to store the quoted exchange rate and a time duration for this the rate quote is valid); determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the updated digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets based on the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the first digital asset and the amount of the first digital asset (Paragraph 0024 teaches the originating bank then debits X units of the first country currency from the payer's bank account at the originating bank in real time; similarly the agent bank transfers Y units of second country currency to the beneficiary's bank account at the beneficiary's bank in real time via the Regional P2P Network in the beneficiary's country); and providing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, one or more of: the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the first digital asset and the digital asset balance in terms of the one or more foreign assets to the computing entity via the digital asset-based interaction interface (Paragraph 0024 teaches the originating bank then debits X units of the first country currency from the payer's bank account at the originating bank in real time; similarly the agent bank transfers Y units of second country currency to the beneficiary's bank account at the beneficiary's bank in real time via the Regional P2P Network in the beneficiary's country; finally the originating bank computer system can send confirmation to the payer, via the money transfer app, email, text, etc., that the payment was successful).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan teaches all the limitations of claims 6 and 19 above; and Kapoor further teaches wherein the determining the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the first digital asset comprises: connecting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, to a second digital asset exchange entity associated with the foreign jurisdiction, wherein the second digital asset exchange entity provides the one or more exchange rates between the one or more foreign assets and the first digital asset (Paragraph 0024 teaches to execute the transfer the FXP, in real time, credits the agent bank's nostro account at the FXP Y units of the second country currency (i.e., the currency of the beneficiary's country); similarly the agent bank transfers Y units of second country currency to the beneficiary's bank account at the beneficiary's bank in real time via the Regional P2P Network 23A in the beneficiary's country).
Claims 8, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapoor (US 20210035211) in view of McNamara (20210192501) in further view of Madhavan (US 20220277276) in further view of Spalding (US 20200013045).
Regarding Claims 8, 13, and 21, the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1, 9, and 14 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first digital asset is a cryptocurrency, and wherein a foreign asset of the one or more foreign assets is a fiat currency associated with the foreign jurisdiction.
Spalding further teaches wherein the first digital asset is a cryptocurrency, and wherein a foreign asset of the one or more foreign assets is a fiat currency associated with the foreign jurisdiction (Paragraph 0052 teaches the user computing device sends the one-time use code plus an amount regarding the requested purchase to the secure data conveyance device; when approved, the secure data conveyance device removes an amount of cryptocurrency from cryptocurrency wallet to cover the purchase, translates the amount of cryptocurrency from specific cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin) to fiat currency).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan to incorporate the teachings of Spalding for the first digital asset to be a cryptocurrency, and wherein a foreign asset of the one or more foreign assets is a fiat currency associated with the foreign jurisdiction.
There is motivation to combine Spalding into the combination of Kapoor, McNamara, and Madhavan because with the first cryptocurrency backed by collateral cryptocurrency, the digital wallet rendered by the digital wallet application executed on the computing device is recognized and accepted within the secure and trusted data communication system 10 for purposes of financial transactions using the first cryptocurrency (Spalding Paragraph 0065).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Forzley et al. (US 20170116608) teaches a payment processor receives currency information and identification information. The currency information comprising a payer fiat-currency and a payee fiat-currency and the identification information comprises information verifying the identify of a payer and a payee. The payment processor utilizes the currency information and the identification information to determine a transaction restriction level and verifies that the identification information meets the threshold for the transaction restriction level. The payment processor receives payment in the payer fiat-currency and initiates a transaction to convert the payer fiat-currency amount into a crypto-currency amount. The payment processor converts the crypto-currency amount into the payee fiat-currency. The payment processor initiates a transfer of the payee fiat-currency amount to the payee.
Rosamilia (US 20210004904) teaches a digital currency whose value is tied to a fiat currency or other thing of value is created in a participant's member account by the participant depositing a fiat currency or other thing of value in a common trust account maintained by a financial institution, and in which a plurality of participants make such deposits. A central authority maintains member accounts for the participants and credits to a participant's member account an international monetary unit (“IMU”) which reflects the value of each deposit that participant makes into the common deposit account. The value of a participant's IMU or IMUs is thus determined by the amount which the participant deposits in the trust account. The IMUs may be transferred between participants and the transferred IMU may be denominated in selected sovereign currencies. Alternatively, a transferee participant may redeem an IMU for value, e.g., for a fiat currency, in which case the IMU is retired.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699