DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
Claims 46, 48, 50-66, and 68, are presented for examination. Applicant filed a request for continued examination (RCE) on 05/04/2026 amending claims 46 and 54; and adding new independent claim 68. In light of Applicant adding new independent claim 68, Examiner has constructively elected Group I (claims 16, 48, and 50-66) for examination because election by original representations is required between Group I (claims 46, 48, and 50-66) and Group II (claim 68). Further, in light of Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 46, Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 and § 103 rejections of claims 46, 48, and 50-66. Examiner has, however, established new § 101 and § 103 rejections for claims 46, 48, and 50-66, in the instant Office action.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101:
Applicant argues in pages 12-13 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Claim 46 is currently amended to require that each register data set comprises a masked electronic coin data set corresponding to the electronic coin data set. The specification explains that a corresponding masked electronic coin data set is associated with each electronic coin data set in a one-to-one relationship, that knowledge of the masked electronic coin data set does not authorize issuance of the digital money represented by the electronic coin data set, and that the masked electronic coin data set is obtained by applying a homomorphic one-way function to the electronic coin data set (see, e.g., paras. [66]-[68] and [163]-[166]).
Claim 46 is accordingly is not directed to the abstract idea of a commercial interaction or merely "processing a payment." Rather, the claim is directed to a specific cryptographic verification architecture for electronic coin data sets. In particular, claim 46 requires a coin register, a transaction register, and a monitoring register that cooperate through different data structures, and it further requires that each register data set comprises a masked electronic coin data set corresponding to the electronic coin data set. As explained in the specification, the masked electronic coin data set stands in a one-to-one relationship with the electronic coin data set, is obtained by applying a homomorphic one-way function, and knowledge of the masked electronic coin data set does not authorize issuance of the digital money represented by the corresponding electronic coin data set. The masked data structure is therefore not a generic record or generic log entry, but a specific cryptographic representation used for privacy-preserving validity checking.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
As before, Applicant’s claims are recited in high level of generality lacking details and specifics as to any technological solution. The newly amended “masking” feature does not change this because it is also recited in high level of generality. As such, instant claims 46, 48, and 50-66, are not patent eligible under § 101 in view of the Test. Applicant is invited to set up an interview with Examiner to discuss this issue.
Prior Art under § 102/§ 103: Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments directed to the previous grounds of § 103 rejection but finds them moot in view of new grounds of § 103 rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of claim 46.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. § 121:
Group I: Claims 46, 48, and 50-66, are drawn to a system for using e-cash classified in CPC: G06Q 20/065.
Group II: Claim 68 is drawn to a system for using encrypted proofs of transaction rights classified in CPC: G06Q 20/38215.
Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as combination and sub-combination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the sub-combination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the sub-combination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the sub-combination as claimed because the invention of Group I does not rely upon:
[E]ncrypt the transaction data set before storage in the transaction register;
store the transaction data set in encrypted form in the transaction register; and
provide, from the transaction register to the monitoring register, a transaction data set derived from the encrypted transaction data set and having an anonymity level higher than the transaction data set received from the first participant unit, wherein the monitoring register is arranged to form a monitoring data set from the provided register data set and the provided transaction data set and to evaluate the monitoring data set to detect double spending or unauthorized generation of monetary amounts.
The sub-combination of Group II has separate utility such as: encrypting the transaction data set before storage in the transaction register; storing the transaction data set in encrypted form in the transaction register; and providing, from the transaction register to the monitoring register, a transaction data set derived from the encrypted transaction data set.
The independent claim 68 of Group II recites limitations that are not found in independent claim 46, nor in dependent claims 48 and 50-66, of Group I. It is, thus, evident that Applicant believes a distinct invention combination lies within each independent claims 46 and 68. Also, the dependent claims 48 and 50-66, of Group I then append a multiple of distinct inventive concepts for which Applicant’s submission is evidence that Applicant believes each supports a distinct reason for invention. See MPEP § 806.05(d). Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and have acquired a separate status in the art as shown by their different concepts, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention of Group I (claims 46, 48, and 50-66), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Group II (claim 68) is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR § 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Applicant is respectfully requested to cancel the non-elected claim 68 in response to this Office action.
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 46, 48, and 50-66, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 46, 48, and 50-66, is a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 46-66 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the Test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 46, 48, and 50-66, however, recite an abstract idea of processing a payment using electronic coin data set. The creation of processing a payment using electronic coin data set, as recited in the independent claim 46 belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claim 46, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“registering data sets for electronic coin data sets, at least one register data set identifying a validity of an electronic coin data set” (claim 46);
“executing payment transactions” (claim 46);
“evaluating monitoring data sets concerning said payment transactions” (claim 46); and
“processing payments by creating a modified electronic coin data set, wherein a monitoring data set in the monitoring register is formed from at least one provided register data set and at least one provided transaction data set, wherein the at least one provided register data set is provided to the monitoring register by the coin register, wherein the at least one provided transaction data set is provided by the transaction register as a transaction data set source, wherein the coin register and the monitoring register are physically separated from each other, and wherein each register data set comprises a masked electronic coin data set corresponding to the electronic coin data set” (claim 46).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claim 46 recites additional elements:
“a coin register” (claim 46);
“participant units including a first participating unit and a second participating unit” (claim 46);
“a transaction register” (claim 46); and
“a monitoring register” (claim 46).
These additional elements appear to comprise software and they are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Also, the following limitations found in independent claim 46 recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“storing register data sets for the electronic coin data sets” (claim 46);
“storing transaction data sets, the transaction data sets identifying the participant units of a payment transaction” (claim 46);
“storing monitoring data sets concerning said payment transactions” (claim 46);
“transmitting the modified electronic coin data set” (claim 46);
“storing the modified coin data set” (claim 46);
“sending a registration request concerning the modified electronic coin data set” (claim 46); and
“sending a transaction data set for the transmission of the modified electronic coin data set” (claim 46).
These additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claim 46 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations).
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: The limitations in independent claim 46, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea are not patent eligible either alone or in combination. The additional elements/limitations in independent claim 46 are not patent eligible either alone or in combination. Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations and the limitations which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/limitations and the limitations which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claim 46 is non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claim 46 (see above under Step 2A – Prong 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with software instructions. The Applicant’s Specification describes these additional elements in following terms:
[0013] The problem is solved in particular by a payment system for payment with electronic coin data sets. The payment system has a coin register which is arranged for registering the electronic coin data sets. The payment system further comprises participant units arranged for executing payment transactions by transmitting the electronic coin data sets and sending status and registration requests concerning the electronic coin data sets to the coin register. The payment system also has a monitoring register arranged to evaluate monitoring data sets relating to the payment transactions. A monitoring data set is thereby formed in the monitoring register from at least one register data set and at least one transaction data set, wherein the at least one register data set is provided by the coin register and wherein the at least one transaction data set is provided by a transaction data set source and/or the coin register.
This is a description of general-purpose software running on a general purpose device. Further, the elements of “transmitting,” “sending,” and “storing” data or information to and from a device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic software instructions. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of “transmitting,” “sending,” and “storing” data or information to and from a device were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional elements of independent claim 46 receives or transmits/sends data over a network in a merely generic manner. Further, similarly to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the additional elements of independent claim 46 store information in memory. The courts have recognized “transmitting,” “sending,” and “storing” data functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional elements of independent claim 46 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claim 46 is non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 48 and 50-66 depend on independent claim 46. The elements in dependent claims 48 and 50-66, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the coin register is further arranged to register modified electronic coin data sets, and register requests of the participant units further concern the modified electronic coin data sets” (claim 48: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“each participant unit is arranged to provide a transaction data set relating to transmitting an electronic coin data set to another participant unit or relating to an electronic coin data set to be registered at the coin register” (claim 50: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“each electronic coin data set comprises at least a monetary amount as a data element and an obfuscation amount as a data element, the obfuscation amount being secret to the coin register and the monitoring register” (claim 51: further narrowing the recited abstract idea):
“the each electronic coin data set comprises a first check value as a data element which is incremented when transmitting the electronic coin data set directly between two participant units” (claim 52: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the each electronic coin data set comprises a coin identifier as a data element, the coin identifier being used to identify a register data set relating to the electronic coin data set and a transaction data set relating to the electronic coin data set” (claim 53: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“each register data set further comprises one or more of the following data elements: a signature of an electronic coin data set; a range proof of the electronic coin data set; a check value of the electronic coin data set; a check value relating to the electronic coin data set; a participant identifier of a participant unit transmitting a register data set; and/or a monetary amount of the electronic coin data set” (claim 54: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“in the coin register a register data set concerning an electronic coin data set is replaced by a registering data set to be registered concerning the electronic coin data set or a modified electronic coin data set” (claim 55: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the coin register is arranged to perform an authentication of the participant units at the coin register” (claim 56: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“a status and/or registration request concerning the electronic coin data set or a modified electronic coin data set from an anonymous participant unit to the coin register is only processed when a transaction data set concerning the electronic coin data set or the modified electronic coin data set is provided evaluable in the monitoring register” (claim 57: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the payment system comprises a person register, and in the person register natural persons are assigned to respective participant identifiers of participant units of the payment system and/or to respective pseudonyms of participant units” (claim 58: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“a register data set has one of different anonymity levels, and the coin register is arranged to set an anonymity level of the register data set before providing it to the monitoring register” (claim 59: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“a transaction data set has one of different anonymity levels, and the transaction data set source is arranged to set an anonymity level of the transaction data set prior to providing it to the monitoring register” (claim 60: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“for setting the anonymity level a participant identifier of a participant unit is pseudonymised or anonymised” (claim 61: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“for setting the anonymity level a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set is pseudonymised or anonymised” (claim 62: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“in a register data set the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set is different from the anonymity level of a participant identifier of a participant unit” (claim 63: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“in a transaction data set the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set is different from the anonymity level of a participant identifier of a participant unit” (claim 64: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set in a transaction data set is different from the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set in a register data set” (claim 65: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“an anonymity level of a monetary amount of the electronic coin data set or an anonymity level of participants of the payment transaction is different between stored transaction data set and stored register data set” (claim 66: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 48 and 50-66 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claim 46 and they are rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 46, 48, and 50-66, are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in § 102 of this title, 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 46, 48, and 50-66, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rooyen (US 2015/0324764 A1) in view of Gundavelli (US 2021/0182840 A1), and further in view of Gaddam (US 11,451,371 B2).
As to independent claim 46
Van Rooyen shows:
a coin register arranged to register and store register data sets for electronic coin data sets, at least one register data set identifying a validity of an electronic coin data set (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶¶ 34-37; page 4, ¶ 47 and ¶ 50; and page 7, ¶ 107);
participant units arranged for executing payment transactions (Van Rooyen: page 1, ¶ 12; page 3, ¶¶ 34-37; and page 4, ¶ 47 and ¶ 50);
a transaction register arranged to store transaction data sets, the transaction data sets identifying the participant units of a payment transaction (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 34; page 4, ¶ 55 and page 5, ¶ 75);
a monitoring register arranged for evaluating and storing monitoring data sets concerning said payment transactions (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 34; page 4, ¶ 55; and page 5, ¶ 76);
a payment system further comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (Van Rooyen: pages 7-8, ¶ 111), the payment system configured for processing payments by:
a first participant unit of the participant units storing an electronic coin data set, creating a modified electronic coin data set and transmitting the modified electronic coin data set to a second participant unit of the participant units (Van Rooyen: page 4, ¶ 50 and ¶ 56);
the second participant storing the modified coin data set (Van Rooyen: page 4, ¶ 56);
at least one of the first and second participant units sending a registration request concerning the modified electronic coin data set (Van Rooyen: page 4, ¶ 57);
at least one of the first and second participant units sending a transaction data set for the transmission of the modified electronic coin data set to the transaction register (Van Rooyen: page 5, ¶ 62);
wherein:
a monitoring data set in the monitoring register is formed from at least one provided register data set and at least one provided transaction data set, the at least one provided register data set is provided to the monitoring register by the coin register, and the at least one provided transaction data set is provided by the transaction register as a transaction data set source (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 34 and ¶ 36; and page 5, ¶ 55 and ¶¶ 75-76); and
the coin register and the monitoring register are logically physically separated from each other (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶¶ 36-37; page 5, ¶ 55; and Fig. 1, labels 116, 130, and 150).
Van Rooyen does not show:
a monitoring register arranged for storing monitoring data sets concerning said payment transactions; and
each register data set comprises a masked electronic coin data set corresponding to the electronic coin data set.
Gundavelli shows:
a monitoring register arranged for storing monitoring data sets concerning said payment transactions (Gundavelli: page 3, ¶ 39).
Motivation to combine Van Rooyen and Gundavelli:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Van Rooyen by a monitoring register arranged for storing monitoring data sets concerning said payment transactions of Gundavelli in order to monitor blockchain activities (Gundavelli: page 3, ¶ 39).
Gaddam shows:
each register data set comprises a masked electronic coin data set corresponding to the electronic coin data set (Gaddam: col. 1, lines 44-51).
Motivation to combine Van Rooyen and Gaddam:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Van Rooyen by each register data set comprising a masked electronic coin data set corresponding to the electronic coin data set of Gaddam in order to provide techniques for improved masking data in an information processing system (Gaddam: col. 1, lines 41-43).
As to claim 48: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that the coin register is further arranged to register modified electronic coin data sets, and that register requests of the participant units further concern the modified electronic coin data sets (Van Rooyen: page 5, ¶ 70).
As to claim 50: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that each participant unit is arranged to provide a transaction data set relating to transmitting an electronic coin data set to another participant unit or relating to an electronic coin data set to be registered at the coin register (Van Rooyen: page 1, ¶ 12; and page 5, ¶¶ 71-72).
As to claim 51: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that each electronic coin data set comprises at least a monetary amount as a data element and an obfuscation amount as a data element, the obfuscation amount being secret to the coin register and the monitoring register (Van Rooyen: page 1, ¶ 12; and page 4, ¶¶ 51-52).
As to claim 52: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 51. Van Rooyen also shows that the each electronic coin data set comprises a first check value as a data element which is incremented when transmitting the electronic coin data set directly between two participant units (Van Rooyen: page 4, ¶ 59).
As to claim 53: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 51. Van Rooyen also shows that the each electronic coin data set comprises a coin identifier as a data element, the coin identifier being used to identify a register data set relating to the electronic coin data set and a transaction data set relating to the electronic coin data set (Van Rooyen: page 1, ¶ 9).
As to claim 54: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that each register data set further comprises one or more of the following data elements: a signature of an electronic coin data set; a range proof of the electronic coin data set; a check value of the electronic coin data set; a check value relating to the electronic coin data set; a participant identifier of a participant unit transmitting a register data set; and/or a monetary amount of the electronic coin data set (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37).
As to claim 55: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that in the coin register a register data set concerning an electronic coin data set is replaced by a registering data set to be registered concerning the electronic coin data set or a modified electronic coin data set (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37; and page 5, ¶ 70).
As to claim 56: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that the coin register is arranged to perform an authentication of the participant units at the coin register (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 34 and ¶ 37; and page 8, ¶ 125).
As to claim 57: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 54. Van Rooyen also shows that the status and/or registration request concerning the electronic coin data set or a modified electronic coin data set from an anonymous participant unit to the coin register is only processed when a transaction data set concerning the electronic coin data set or the modified electronic coin data set is provided evaluable in the monitoring register (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37).
As to claim 58: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that the payment system comprises a person register, and wherein in the person register natural persons are assigned to respective participant identifiers of participant units of the payment system and/or to respective pseudonyms of participant units (Van Rooyen: page 6, ¶ 80).
As to claim 59: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that a register data set has one of different anonymity levels, and the coin register is arranged to set an anonymity level of the register data set before providing it to the monitoring register (Van Rooyen: page 6, ¶ 80 and ¶¶ 89-90).
As to claim 60: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that a transaction data set has one of different anonymity levels, and wherein the transaction data set source is arranged to set an anonymity level of the transaction data set prior to providing it to the monitoring register (Van Rooyen: page 6, ¶ 80 and ¶¶ 89-90).
As to claim 61: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 59. Van Rooyen also shows that a for setting the anonymity level a participant identifier of a participant unit is pseudonymised or anonymized (Van Rooyen: page 6, ¶ 80).
As to claim 62: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 59. Van Rooyen also shows that for setting the anonymity level a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set is pseudonymised or anonymized (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37; and page 4, ¶ 51).
As to claim 63: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 59. Van Rooyen also shows that in a register data set the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set is different from the anonymity level of a participant identifier of a participant unit (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37; and page 4, ¶ 51).
As to claim 64: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 59. Van Rooyen also shows that in a transaction data set the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set is different from the anonymity level of a participant identifier of a participant unit (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37; and page 4, ¶ 51).
As to claim 65: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 59. Van Rooyen also shows that the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set in a transaction data set is different from the anonymity level of a monetary amount of an electronic coin data set in a register data set (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37; and page 4, ¶ 51).
As to claim 66: Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli, and further in view of Gaddam, shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that an anonymity level of a monetary amount of the electronic coin data set or an anonymity level of participants of the payment transaction is different between stored transaction data set and stored register data set (Van Rooyen: page 3, ¶ 37; and page 4, ¶ 51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Piatek (US 11,157,645 B2) discloses: “As shown in FIG. 3, an isomorphic function of f(x)=x+2 may be applied to each of the entries (x) in the original data set 200 to create a masked data set 200m. Thus, each of the entries may be masked in the masked data set 200m by the same isomorphic function (i.e. the addition of 2 to the original digit).”
Fernandez (WO 2022/099113 A1) discloses: “A retrofit interface module (RIM) described herein may allow legacy cash terminals to perform cryptocurrency-based transactions. The RIM may be installed at existing cash terminals such as vending machines, parking kiosks, ticket booths, etc. The RIM may allow the legacy cash terminals to interact with user devices such as smartphone across one or more wireless communication channels in order to perform cryptocurrency-based transactions. Such transactions may include cryptocurrency payments to cash terminals and cash deposits to cryptocurrency accounts or coins via the RIM and an associated cash terminal.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
