DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
The Applicant’s Amendment filed on May 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21, 30, 38, and 48 were amended. Claims 21, 23, 25-26, 30-32, 34, 38-39, and 47-49 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
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 21, 23, 25-26, 30-32, 34, 38-39, and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21, 23, 25-26, 30-32, 34, 38-39, and 47-49 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 21 -: 21, a implemented method comprising: transmitting, by a redeeming entity to a central entity, a request for currency, the request comprising a serial number and a denomination of a first physical currency; wherein the request for the currency is granted based upon a certificate issued to the redeeming entity by a transaction processing, receiving, by the redeeming entity, a notification that the currency has been generated, wherein the currency is generated by the central entity based upon the request, wherein generating the currency comprises recording the currency to a container, the container being associated with a container address that represents a contract for establishing new fiat currency, wherein the currency is recorded for the denomination and linked to the serial number using a second certificate issued to the central entity by the transaction processing that grants permission to the central entity to generate or destroy currency, wherein includes storing data for a plurality of transactions, the plurality of transactions including a first record including a public key associated with a wallet, wherein the currency is recorded using a public key of the central entity, and wherein the recording of the currency is validated by a plurality of validating entities using consensus; responsive to receiving the notification, causing, by the redeeming entity, removal of the first physical currency from circulation, wherein further includes a second record recording the removal of the first physical currency from circulation; transmitting, by the redeeming entity to the central entity, a second request for currency, the second request comprising a serial number and a denomination of a second physical currency, wherein the serial number and the denomination of the second physical currency are the same as the serial number and the denomination of the first physical currency; and receiving, by the redeeming entity from the central entity, an indication of the central entity refraining from generating a second currency based on the second request, responsive to the central entity determining that the currency corresponding to the serial number and denomination is already recorded, thereby preventing counterfeiting and volatility. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 23 -: 23, the method of claim 21, wherein causing removal of the first physical currency from circulation comprises physically destroying the first physical currency, the first physical currency being fiat currency. Claim 25 -: 25, the method of claim 21, further comprising: receiving, by the redeeming entity, the first physical currency for redemption for the currency, wherein the first physical currency is received from a user at a bank associated with the redeeming entity. Claim 26 -: 26, the method of claim 21, further comprising: determining that the first physical currency is unusable, wherein the request for the currency is transmitted responsive to the determination. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 30 -: 30, a method comprising: providing, by a user to a redeeming entity, data corresponding to a request to redeem a first physical currency for currency, wherein a user associated with the user provides the first physical currency for redemption, the first physical currency having a denomination and a serial number; receiving, by the user from the redeeming entity, an indication that the currency has been generated, wherein the currency is generated by a central entity based upon the request, wherein generating the currency comprises recording the currency to a record in a container, the container being... [id. at 21], using a certificate issued to the central entity by a transaction processing that grants permission to the central entity to generate or destroy currency, wherein includes... [id. at 21], a first record indicating that the currency for an amount associated with the denomination has been created, the first record including a public key associated with a wallet and a second record recording removal of the first physical currency from circulation, wherein the currency... [id. at 21], wherein the recording of the currency is validated by a plurality of validating entities; and recording, to a wallet executing on the user, an amount of currency corresponding to the denomination, wherein the record further comprises an address of the wallet of the user using consensus, wherein the central entity thereafter receives a second request for currency, the second request comprising a serial number and a denomination of a second physical currency, wherein the serial number and the denomination of the second physical currency are the same as the serial number and the denomination of the first physical currency, and refrains from generating a second currency based on the second request, responsive to determining that the currency corresponding to the serial number and denomination is already recorded, thereby preventing counterfeiting and volatility. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 31 -: 31, the method of claim 30, wherein recording the amount of currency to the wallet comprises associating the currency with the wallet using a private key stored to the wallet, and wherein the private key of the wallet is stored on the user. Claim 32 -: 32, the method of claim 30, wherein the data corresponding to the request and the first physical currency are provided to the redeeming entity via a teller. Claim 34 -: 34, the method of claim 30, wherein the first physical currency is removed from circulation responsive to the request, wherein removing the first physical currency from circulation comprises physically destroying the first physical currency, and wherein the first physical currency is fiat currency. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 38 -: 38, a method comprising: transmitting, by a user to a central entity, a request to record a transfer of currency between a first user associated with the user and a second user, the request including a public key of the first user, a public key of the second user, and an amount; receiving, by the user from the central entity responsive to the request, an indication of recordation of the transfer, the recordation of the transfer being on record on in a, wherein the currency is recorded using a certificate issued to the central entity by a transaction processing that grants permission to the central entity to generate or destroy currency, the record comprising the public key of the first user, the public key of the second user, the amount, and a serial number of a first physical currency corresponding to the currency; wherein includes... [id. at 21], a first record indicating that the currency for an amount associated with a denomination has been created, the first record including a public key associated with a wallet and a second record... [id. at 30], wherein the currency... [id. at 21], wherein the recording of the currency is validated by a plurality of validating entities using consensus; and recording, to a wallet executing on the user, an updated amount of currency corresponding to the amount, wherein the record further comprises an address of the wallet of the first users, wherein the central... [id. at 30], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 39 -: 39, the method of claim 38, further comprising: receiving, by the user from a second user associated with the second user, a certificate of the second user, wherein the request further comprises the certificate of the second user or a derivative thereof and a certificate of the first user or a derivative thereof, and wherein the certificate of the first user and the certificate of the second user were granted to the first user and the second user by a transaction processing. Claim 47 -: 47, the method of claim 38, wherein the removal of the first physical currency from circulation comprises physically destroying the physical currency, the physical currency being fiat currency. Claim 48 -: 48, the method of claim 30, wherein recording the amount of currency to the wallet executing on the user comprises associating the currency with the wallet using a private key stored to the wallet, wherein the associating comprises recording a transfer of the currency to the user to a third record, wherein a public key of the user is recorded to the third record to indicate that the currency has been assigned to the user, such that the currency is associated with an account of the user. Claim 49 -: 49, the method of claim 38, wherein recording... [id. at 48], wherein the associating comprises recording a transfer of the currency to a third record, wherein a public key of a user is recorded to the third record to indicate that the currency has been assigned to the user, such that the currency is associated with an account of the user. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: digital fiat currency as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 21, 30, and 38 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 21 and is described by the steps of independent claim 30 and is described by the steps of independent claim 38.
Claim 21 (as amended): Materially with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 21 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-implemented", "redeeming entity computer", "central entity computer", "digital currency", "transaction processing network", "blockchain", "digital fiat currency", "plurality of blocks", "at least one block", "digital wallet", and "proof of stake". However, independent claim 21 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-implemented", "redeeming entity computer", "central entity computer", "digital currency", "transaction processing network", "blockchain", "digital fiat currency", "plurality of blocks", "at least one block", "digital wallet", and "proof of stake" of independent claim 21 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computer-implemented method comprising", "transmitting, by a redeeming entity … a first physical currency", "wherein the request for the … a transaction processing network", "receiving, by the redeeming entity … container on a blockchain", "the container being associated with … to the serial number", "using a second certificate issued … or destroy digital currency", "wherein the blockchain includes a … plurality of transactions including", "a first record including a … with a digital wallet", "wherein the digital currency is … central entity computer, and", "wherein the recording of the … proof of stake consensus", "responsive to receiving the notification, … physical currency from circulation", "wherein the blockchain further includes … physical currency from circulation", "transmitting, by the redeeming entity … first physical currency; and" and "receiving, by the redeeming entity … preventing counterfeiting and volatility") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] 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 an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 21 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 30 (as amended): Materially pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 30 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "user device", "redeeming entity computer", "digital currency", "central entity computer", "blockchain", "digital fiat currency", "transaction processing network", "plurality of blocks", "at least one block", "digital wallet", and "proof of stake". However, independent claim 30 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "user device", "redeeming entity computer", "digital currency", "central entity computer", "blockchain", "digital fiat currency", "transaction processing network", "plurality of blocks", "at least one block", "digital wallet", and "proof of stake" of independent claim 30 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a method comprising", "providing, by a user device … and a serial number", "receiving, by the user device … container on a blockchain", "the container being associated with … to the serial number", "using a certificate issued to … or destroy digital currency", "wherein the blockchain includes a … plurality of transactions including", "a first record indicating that … a digital wallet and", "a second record recording removal … physical currency from circulation", "wherein the digital currency is … central entity computer, and", "wherein the recording of the … of validating entities; and", "recording, to a digital wallet … corresponding to the denomination", "wherein the record on the … proof of stake consensus" and "wherein the central entity computer … preventing counterfeiting and volatility") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 30 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 38 (as amended): Specifically regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 38 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "user device", "central entity computer", "digital currency", "a block", "blockchain", "transaction processing network", "plurality of blocks", "at least one block", "digital wallet", and "proof of stake". However, independent claim 38 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "user device", "central entity computer", "digital currency", "a block", "blockchain", "transaction processing network", "plurality of blocks", "at least one block", "digital wallet", and "proof of stake" of independent claim 38 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a method comprising", "transmitting, by a user device … user, and an amount", "receiving, by the user device … block in a blockchain", "wherein the digital currency is … or destroy digital currency", "the record comprising the public … to the digital currency", "wherein the blockchain includes a … plurality of transactions including", "a first record indicating that … a digital wallet and", "a second record recording removal … physical currency from circulation", "wherein the digital currency is … central entity computer, and", "wherein the recording of the … of stake consensus; and", "recording, to a digital wallet … corresponding to the amount", "wherein the record on the … of the first users" and "wherein the central entity computer … preventing counterfeiting and volatility") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 38 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 21, 30, and 38 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 23, 25-26, 31-32, 34, 39, and 47-49 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "chip of a smart card or a secure element" of dependent claim 31 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 32: Dependent claim 32 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "Automated Teller Machine (ATM)" of dependent claim 32 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 23: Dependent claim 23 adds an additional method step of "wherein causing removal of the first physical currency from circulation comprises physically destroying the first physical currency, the first physical currency being fiat currency". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 23 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 23 is ineligible.
Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 adds an additional method step of "receiving, by the redeeming entity computer, the first physical currency for redemption for the digital … is received from a user at a bank associated with the redeeming entity computer". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 25 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 25 is ineligible.
Claim 26: Dependent claim 26 adds an additional method step of "determining that the first physical currency is unusable, wherein the request for the digital currency is transmitted responsive to the determination". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 26 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 26 is ineligible.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 adds an additional method step of "wherein recording the amount of digital currency to the digital wallet comprises associating the digital … a chip of a smart card or a secure element of the user device". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 31 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 31 is ineligible.
Claim 32: Dependent claim 32 adds additional method steps of "wherein the data corresponding to the request and the first physical currency are provided to the redeeming entity computer via an Automated Teller Machine (ATM)". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 32 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 32 is ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 adds additional method steps of "wherein the first physical currency is removed from circulation responsive to the request, wherein removing … destroying the first physical currency, and wherein the first physical currency is fiat currency". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 34 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 34 is ineligible.
Claim 39: Dependent claim 39 adds additional method steps of "receiving, by the user device from a second user device associated with the second user, a certificate of the second user", "wherein the request further comprises the certificate of the second user or a derivative thereof and a certificate of the first user or a derivative thereof, and", "wherein the certificate of the first user and the certificate of the second user were granted to the first user and the second user by a transaction processing network". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 39 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 39 is ineligible.
Claim 47: Dependent claim 47 adds an additional method step of "wherein the removal of the first physical currency from circulation comprises physically destroying the physical currency, the physical currency being fiat currency". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 47 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 47 is ineligible.
Claim 48: Dependent claim 48 adds an additional method step of "wherein recording the amount of digital currency to the digital wallet executing on the user … currency with the digital wallet using a private key stored to the digital wallet", "wherein the associating comprises recording a transfer of the digital currency to the user to a third record of the blockchain", "wherein a public key of the user is recorded to the third record to indicate … user, such that the digital currency is associated with an account of the user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 48 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 48 is ineligible.
Claim 49: Dependent claim 49 adds an additional method step of "wherein recording the amount of digital currency to the digital wallet executing on the user … currency with the digital wallet using a private key stored to the digital wallet", "wherein the associating comprises recording a transfer of the digital currency to a third record of the blockchain", "wherein a public key of a user is recorded to the third record to indicate … user, such that the digital currency is associated with an account of the user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 49 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 49 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted May 11, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed February 10, 2026 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the February 10, 2026 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• Specifically, the Applicant argued:
"[] Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration [].
"Claims [] 35 U.S.C. [] 101 [] rejections are traversed.
"[] The Claims do not Recite an Abstract Idea
'[T]he claims recite a computer-rooted process that is not abstract. [C]laim 21 as amended recites, inter alia, [amended claim language] which are computer-rooted operations and not "fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind,"[].
'The claims recite detailed computer-rooted operations and data structures for new techniques of cryptocurrency conversion and management, which are not "fundamental" or conventional. As to concepts performed in the human mind, such steps cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind, as they are inherently computer rooted.
'[] Examiner's alleged abstract idea comparison "describ[es] the claims at such a high level of abstraction ... untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to º 101 swallow the rule." (Cf Enfish, LLC v Microsoft Corporation, No. 15-1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016). [] the Examiner has failed to establish that the claims are prima facie invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101.'
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 9-11).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Materially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the claims neither recite nor require any of "detailed computer-rooted operations and data structures for new techniques of cryptocurrency conversion and management". Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Regarding the Enfish v. Microsoft court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office ascertains that the legal holdings of Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. While considering in light of the precise facts and the specific holdings of Enfish v. Microsoft in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in Enfish, claim was found to be eligible in Step 2A for product regarding an improved information and storage system using a self-referential data table. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the specific facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are significantly different from the material facts in Enfish v. Microsoft with respect to Enfish's holdings. The patentee in Enfish argued that its claimed self-referential table for a computer database was an improvement in an existing technology and thus not directed to an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court agreed with the patentee, based on its interpretation of the claim requiring a four-step algorithm that achieved the improvements. The eligible claims in Enfish recited a self-referential database having two key features: all entity types can be stored in a single table; and the table rows can contain information defining the table columns. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1332, 118 USPQ2d at 1687. The features were not conventional and thus were considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology. In particular, they enabled the claimed table to achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337, 118 USPQ2d at 1690. In contrast, the Applicant's alleged invention involves digital fiat currency, and the features in the Applicant's pending claims are well-understood and conventional and/or are not considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the substantive relevant facts in the Applicant's pending matter are materially dissimilar to the facts in Enfish v. Microsoft. Consequently, the Office determines that the legal holdings of Enfish v. Microsoft can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"[] The Claims Recite Elements Which Integrate a Practical Application
'[] A practical application should be found if there is "any 'practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.'" (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 8. Ct. 1289 (2012)).
"Applicant submits that the instant claims share substantial similarities to the claims of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, et al. (Fed, Cir. Dec. 5, 2014). []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], p. 11).
Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. Questions of preemption are inherently addressed within the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated into the above depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved using this framework to identify preemptive claims. While a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not establish that a claim is eligible. Regarding the DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office finds that the legal holdings of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In the process of considering the particular facts and the particular holdings of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in DDR Holdings, claims were found to be eligible in Step 2A for methods and system regarding expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites by matching website "look and feel". However, the particular facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are considerably contradistinctive from the relevant facts in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com concerning DDR's holdings. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), provides an example of additional elements that favored eligibility because they were more than well-understood, routine conventional activities in the field. The claims in DDR Holdings were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant. 773 F.3d at 1248, 113 USPQ2d at 1099. The court found that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host's webpage to the third party's webpage when the hyperlink was activated. 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07. Thus, the claims in DDR Holdings were eligible. In contrast, the Applicant's alleged invention involves digital fiat currency, and the claims in the Applicant's pending matter do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims do not have additional elements that are more than what were well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the substantive relevant facts in the Applicant's pending matter are materially dissimilar to the facts in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com. Consequently, the Office concludes that the legal holdings of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"[I]n conventional cryptocurrency systems, decentralized nodes generate and validate transactions without one node having more control than any other node. ([] 3). Conventional cryptocurrency systems have problems such as volatility and high power usage. ([] 150).
'Embodiments of the invention address these problems. In embodiments of the invention, physical currency is replaced by digital currency, the physical currency is removed from circulation, and the removal of the physical currency from circulation is tracked on the blockchain. As claimed, "the digital currency is recorded for the denomination and linked to the serial number." By linking the digital currency one-to-one to fiat currency that is "remov[ed] from circulation' in this fashion, the above-noted problems with "conventional cryptocurrency systems . . . can be solved using the private, permissioned network managed by a transaction processing network and central entity to speed up and manage the flow of currency." ([] 150). Removing the physical currency from circulation helps to regulate the value of the digital currency, ([] 51), and the blockchain node stores a record indicating that the particular unit of physical currency has been removed from circulation, ([] 70). These techniques maintain the regulated value of the currency and an immutable record of the transaction, providing an improvement to the functioning of the computing system.
"The claims further recite steps for preventing counterfeiting and ensuring stability by checking the serial number recorded to the blockchain and refraining from generating a new digital currency if the serial number is already recorded
'[S]uch techniques "prevent use and redemption of counterfeit notes and enhance security. [W]hen an entity brings physical currency to the central entity for conversion to digital fiat currency, the conversion may be denied if the serial number of the physical currency indicates that the physical currency has already been converted." (Spec. [] 143). "[A] counterfeit alert may be issued for the serial number, that may affect both the initial conversion and the subsequent request to covert. Monitoring redeemed serial numbers can further be used to prevent use of counterfeit physical notes, enhancing the security of the monetary system overall." (Id., emphasis added).
"The independent claims as further recite [] an additional improvement to the functioning of the computer system. Traditional blockchain systems, by design, operate by consensus of anonymous permissionless nodes. While these techniques have their advantages, the traditional digital currency is volatile and not trackable. [T]he validation modes used in permissionless networks used in traditional digital currency schemes are slow and require a great deal of power consumption. (See [] 142, 145, 150). The claimed invention solves these problems by using a permissioned network using the specialized validation technique of proof of stake consensus. The specification explains how this consensus mechanism will improve speed and reduce power usage over traditional digital currency techniques, which is a clear improvement to the functioning of the computer system. (See [] 145, 150, 151).
"[I]mproving speed and reducing power usage are clearly improvements to the computer system itself and not any financial scheme. Nor are these improvements merely because of automating a manual process--the way the steps are executed, as claimed, provide the improvement.
"[T]he claimed techniques provide an improvement to the functioning of the computing system. [T]he claimed steps integrate a practical application. Thus, the section 101 inquiry should end [], and the claims are patent-eligible."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 12-14).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments submitted May 11, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 12-14 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. The issuance and management of fiat currency in circulation as claimed recites judicial exceiptions within fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions. The differences between, e.g. "proof of work" and "proof of stake" (as described e.g. by Applicant's Specification par. [0145]) represent fundamental differences in the agreement(s) among the system managers as to how validators were selected/assigned and operated, and therefore are not fully directly comparable (e.g. analagous to the limitations involved in comparisons of "apples" and "oranges"); each having different benefits and pitfalls; but in either case, respresented agreement(s) and obligations as to how the system managed the bookkeeping of the economic transactions that were being processed and accounted for. The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
'[] Even Were the Claims Directed to an Abstract Idea. They Would Include "Significantly More"
'[C]haracteristics that can qualify as "significantly more[;]" [t]he claims clearly meet those characteristics.
'[T]he Applicant maintains that the recited claim elements clearly "add[] a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" or "add[] unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application." [] Applicant submits that at least:
"[some of claim limitations as amended]
"are unconventional operations.
"[] (Office Action, p. 9) [] is improper, as Step 2B requires analysis of unconventionality. [A] prima facie case of ineligibility has not been established.
'[E]ven if the analysis continues to (Step 2B), the claims recite "si gnificantly more" than the alleged abstract idea and the claims are eligible subject matter under [] 101. []
"[] Applicant believes all claims now pending in this application are in condition for allowance. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 14-16).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments submitted May 11, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 14-16 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Use of an unspecified computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. That the Specification indicates that standard off-the-shelf computer technology is usable to implement the claimed invention (for example as indicated) only bolsters the notion that the claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Under the Office's current examination procedure, the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis framework depicted in the above-illustrated § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes is the ONLY analysis for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPAT No. US 10929842 B1 to Arvanaghi; Brandon et al. discloses System, method and program product for depositing and withdrawing stable value digital assets in exchange for fiat.
USPAT No. US 10762506 B1 to Cash; Duane et al. discloses Token device for distributed ledger based interchange.
USPGPub No. US 20150170112 A1 by DeCastro; Erly Dalvo discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING MULTI-CURRENCY PLATFORMS COMPRISING MEANS FOR EXCHANGING AND INTERCONVERTING TANGIBLE AND VIRTUAL CURRENCIES IN VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS, BANKING OPERATIONS, AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS.
USPGPub No. US 20170293912 A1 by Furche; Andreas et al. discloses SECURE TRANSACTION CONTROLLER FOR VALUE TOKEN EXCHANGE SYSTEMS.
USPAT No. US 5910987 A to Ginter; Karl L. et al. discloses Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection.
USPAT No. US 7069451 B1 to Ginter; Karl L. et al. discloses Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection.
USPGPub No. US 20200097927 A1 by Groarke; Peter discloses Method and System for Dispute Resolution in a Public Blockchain.
USPGPub No. US 20200027084 A1 by Groarke; Peter et al. discloses Method and System for Hybrid Payment Authorization.
USPAT No. US 10373158 B1 to James; Daniel William Halley et al. discloses System, method and program product for modifying a supply of stable value digital asset tokens.
USPAT No. US 10373129 B1 to James; Daniel William Halley et al. discloses System, method and program product for generating and utilizing stable value digital assets.
USPGPub No. US 20190303886 A1 by Kikinis; Dan discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTI-TIERED DISTRIBUTED NETWORK TRANSACTIONAL DATABASE.
USPGPub No. US 20160342977 A1 by Lam; Jeremy discloses DEVICE, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VIRTUAL ASSET TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20030085271 A1 by Laskowski, Edward L. discloses Automated banking machine currency tracking system.
USPGPub No. US 20150371224 A1 by Lingappa; Phaneendra Ramaseshu discloses CRYPTOCURRENCY INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20150269541 A1 by MacGregor; Robert Scott et al. discloses VIRTUAL CURRENCY SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20050038756 A1 by Nagel, Robert H. discloses System and method for production and authentication of original documents.
USPGPub No. US 20130262295 A1 by Narayanan; Shankar discloses DIGITAL EMULATION OF CASH-BASED TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20180330342 A1 by Prakash; Gyan et al. discloses DIGITAL ASSET ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT.
USPGPub No. US 20190108517 A1 by Rose; Gregory G. discloses DIGITAL CURRENCY FOR PERFORMING CASH-EQUIVALENT TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20190213584 A1 by SHANMUGAM; Saravana Perumal discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TOKENIZED REPLACEMENT OF CRYPTO CURRENCY ADDRESSES.
USPGPub No. US 20190236565 A1 by SONG; Joo Han et al. discloses METHOD FOR ISSUING CURRENCY AND MAKING PAYMENT BY MANAGING BALANCE DATABASE FOR EACH BLOCK IN BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK AND SERVER USING SAME.
USPGPub No. US 20180227293 A1 by UHR; Joon Sun et al. discloses CERTIFICATE ISSUING SYSTEM BASED ON BLOCK CHAIN.
USPGPub No. US 20170308872 A1 by UHR; Joon Sun et al. discloses DIGITAL VIRTUAL CURRENCY TRANSACTION SYSTEM AND METHOD HAVING BLOCK CHAIN BETWEEN CONCERNED PARTIES.
USPGPub No. US 20180204192 A1 by Whaley; Andrew et al. discloses Secure Digital Data Operations.
USPGPub No. US 20100306092 A1 by Wilkes; Bradley discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONICALLY CIRCULATING A CURRENCY.
USPGPub No. US 20100306087 A1 by Wilkes; Bradley discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONICALLY CIRCULATING A CURRENCY.
USPGPub No. US 20120078693 A1 by Wilkes; Bradley discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONICALLY CURCULATING A CURRENCY.
USPAT No. US 10438290 B1 to Winklevoss; Cameron Howard et al. discloses System, method and program product for generating and utilizing stable value digital assets.
USPAT No. US 10269009 B1 to Winklevoss; Cameron Howard et al. discloses Systems, methods, and program products for a digital math-based asset exchange.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 and Friday from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 07/06/2026
Prosecution Insights