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, and 50-66, are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to non-final Office action on 10/20/2025 amending claim 46 and canceling claim 67. In light of Applicant’s amendment, Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 rejection of claims 46, 48, and 50-66. Examiner has, however, established new § 101 rejection for claims 46, 48, and 50-66, and maintained the previous grounds of § 103 rejection of claims 46, 48, and 50-66, in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection of claims 46, 48, and 50-66, is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 46, and Examiner has maintained the previous grounds of § 103 rejection of claims 46, 48, and 50-66, the instant rejection of claims 46, 48, and 50-66, is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101:
Applicant argues in pages 11-12 and 15 of Applicant’s Remarks:
[I]t is respectfully submitted that the claim also "entails an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem." MPEP 2106.11 citing Amdocs, 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, the recited elements are "specific limitation[s] other than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field" and involve "adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application." MPEP 2106.05.A citing BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, independent claim 46 recites the additional elements of a coin register, participant units, a transaction register and a monitoring register that are each arranged to store specific data sets, thus the claims are directed to a particular way to configure the data for storage. As such, it is respectfully submitted that the claims are analogous to those in DDR which produce "a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." MPEP 2106.05(d)II citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
. . .
[T]he disclosed system is used to reduce the problem of data storage management by causing data to be stored and processed in more favorable locations, and efficiently storing and distributing the data. As such, the invention is directed to an improvement in computer operation rather than an improvement of a task that is performed on a computer (i.e., it is improving the manner in which the computer stores the data), and overcomes a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, and thus, "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks," and, accordingly, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, in Fairwarning, the Federal Circuit Court distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in DDR Holdings elaborating: “The claims here do not propose a solution or overcome a problem “specifically arising in the realm of computer [technology].” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. At most, the claims require that these processes be executed on a generic computer.” (12). Similarly here, the instant claims 46, 48, and 50-66, do not propose a solution or overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology, but instead, require, at most, that the process executed on a generic computer. Therefore, the instant claims 46, 48, and 50-66, are not patent eligible under § 101 in view of DDR Holdings.
Second, the Federal Circuit Court, in Electric Power Group, distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in Bascom explaining: “Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom …The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.” (10-11). Similarly here, the instant claims 46, 48, and 50-66, focus on gathering, analyzing and processing information, but do not use anything besides entirely conventional, generic technology of a coin register, a transaction register, and a monitoring register. While the Federal Circuit Court in Bascom found non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, no such non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements is present with the instant claims. Thus, the instant claims 46, 48, and 50-66, are not patentable in view of Bascom.
Third, Applicant’s amendment does not change the patent eligibility analysis under § 101 in view of the Test. The newly amended features are recited in high level of generality lacking details and specifics as to any technological solution. As such, instant claims 46, 48, and 50-66, are not patent eligible under § 101 in view of the Test.
Prior Art under § 102/§ 103: Applicant argues in pages 16-17 of Applicant's Remarks:
In particular, amended claim 46 requires separation of coin register data according to paras. [65-68] and transaction data according to paras. [24] and [26-27]. Thus, data security is significantly improved and in addition can be controlled flexibly, e.g. per transaction (paras. [64], [79], [287], [319], [324], [328] and [398]).
In contrast, Van Rooyen is directed to a transaction ledger that is monitored to determine whether a redeeming transaction against the voucher address has occurred against a destination cryptocurrency address. Specifically, the issuer 110 in Van Rooyen issues a voucher for a given amount of cryptocurrency in a transaction ledger 150 and monitors the ledger 150 with regard to the use of allowed addresses, if a transaction is recorded in the ledger 150 (paras. [0075-76]).
The ledger 150 of Van Rooyen includes both the coin status and the transaction data, such that Van Rooyen accordingly fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise consider separation of coin register data and transaction data according to amended claim 46. In the ledger 150 of Van Rooyen both the coin status and the transaction data are required and both the coin status and the transaction data are publicly available.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant’s nowhere in the claim 46 can Examiner find recitation for “separation of coin register data and transaction data.” Further, Applicant's independent claim 46 recites:
a coin register arranged to register and store register data sets for electronic coin data sets . . . ; [and]
the at least one provided transaction data set is provided by the transaction register as a transaction data set source;
Van Rooyen discloses:
[0037] Records of all transactions conducted in the cryptocurrency system (130) are held in a transaction ledger (150). In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the transaction ledger (150) is a publicly visible shared transaction ledger. Typically, the shared transaction ledger (150) includes all these transactions as a chain of transaction records or receipts, commonly referred to as a “block chain”. These transaction records are signed using both a private key and a public key, the private key being that of a party transferring value and the public key being associated with a receiving cryptocurrency address.
[0055] The issuer (110) uses its monitoring component (116) to monitor (209) the transaction ledger (150) so as to determine whether a redeeming transaction has occurred. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the monitoring component (116) is used to inspect or analyse the shared transaction ledger (150), for example by using a web-based platform providing at least some of the transaction records.
[0062] Completion of the redeeming transaction, whether by the user (120) or recipient entity (140), causes a record of the redeeming transaction to become visible in the transaction ledger (150) at a next stage (214).
Thus, Van Rooyen discloses that a cryptocurrency system (130) (i.e., “a coin register” of the instant claim 46) registers and stores data sets in a transaction ledger (150) (i.e., “a transaction register” of the instant claim 46) and that the transaction register (150) is a transaction data set source. Further, looking at the Fig 1, it is clear that Van Rooyen’s “monitoring component” (116) (i.e., “the monitoring register” of instant claim 46), “cryptocurrency system” (130) (i.e., “the coin register” of instant claim 46), and “transaction ledger” (150) (i.e., “the transaction register” of claim 46) are separate. Therefore, Van Rooyen teaches that “the monitoring register,” “the coin register,” and "the transaction register” are separate.
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. Claims 46, 48, and 50-66, however, do not recite any system hardware components. Claims directed to a system, i.e., to an apparatus, must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See, e.g., In re Danly 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 582, 531 (CCPA 1959). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1657 (bd Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The structural limitations of instant claims 46-65 (“a coin register” (claim 46), “participant units” (claim 46), “a transaction register” (claim 46), and “a monitoring register” (claim 46)) are interpreted as a computer code per-se. They are, therefore, not statutory subject matter. Applicant could amend the body of the claim language of the independent system claim 1 with “processor and memory combined with processor …” or any other computer hardware components that are supported in the Applicant’s Specification that are carrying out the steps of independent system claim 46.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 46-66 are not statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the Test. Examiner will continue to analyze the independent claims under two prongs of Step 2A and under Step 2B even though claims do not pass the 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, and wherein the coin register and the monitoring register are physically separated from each other” (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). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: 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);
“a register data set 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; a masked electronic coin 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).
As to 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); and 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. Gundavelli shows a monitoring register arranged for storing monitoring data sets concerning said payment transactions (Gundavelli: page 3, ¶ 39). 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).
As to claim 48, Van Rooyen in view of Gundavelli 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 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 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 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 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 shows all the elements of claim 46. Van Rooyen also shows that a register data set 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; a masked electronic coin 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Alfert (US 2024/0354746 A1) discloses: “A coin deposit managing unit includes a secure execution unit for managing digital coin data sets of a central bank. The secure execution unit is adapted so as to exchange digital coin data sets with coin managing units and transmit registration requests to a coin register of the central bank. A first coin deposit, which comprises at least one first digital coin data set, and a second coin deposit, which comprises at least one second digital coin data set. The coin deposit managing unit manages coin deposits of different users. The first coin deposit comprises a first functional specification which checks the secure execution unit when managing coin data sets, and the second coin deposit comprises a second different functional specification which checks the secure execution unit when managing coin data sets.”
Lee (US 2017/0061397 A1) discloses: “An electronic coin system comprising at least one processor that, receives, by the at least one processor, input from a sender device, creates, by the at least one processor, a digital coin check accessible by at least one receiver device responsive to the input from the sender device, stores, in a digital coin payment file in at least one memory, the digital coin check as metadata, wherein the at least one processor and the at least one memory are communicably coupled, notifies, by the at least one processor, the at least one receiver device of the created digital coin check, tracks, by the at least one processor, activity of the digital coin check and allows access, by the at least one processor, to the digital coin check by the at least one receiver device.”
Yao (CN 107392600 B) discloses: “The embodiment of the invention claims a digital currency transaction payment registration method and system, to optimize and upgrade the legal monetary transaction payment registration system, improve the security of digital currency transaction, timeliness, reduce the cost of digital currency transaction. wherein the digital currency transaction payment registration method comprises: receiving a digital currency transaction payment registration request; setting the registered state of the old digital currency to be destroyed according to the transaction payment registration request, and registering the new digital currency; and returning the successful registration reply to the initiator of the transaction payment registration request.”
Ebert (CN 116057554 A) discloses: “The invention relates to a method in a first participant unit, preferably a first security element, the first participant unit has an electronic currency data set registered in the payment system of the currency register, the method comprises the following steps: generating a transaction data group, the transaction data group and the electronic currency data group to the second participant unit, preferably the transmission of the second security element, or the electronic currency data group to be registered at the currency register of the modification, using the password key to encrypt the generated transaction data group, wherein the password key is composed of at least two password sub-keys of different remote entities, preferably at least three password sub-keys, and starting the communication connection of the transaction register of the payment system, so as to send the encrypted transaction data group to the transaction register. The invention also relates to a participant unit, a method in a transaction register, a transaction register and a payment system.”
Albert (CN 115803763 A) discloses: “The invention relates to a method for transmitting electronic currency data set to the second security element in the first security element, wherein the electronic currency data set is registered in the currency register of the payment system, the method comprises the following steps: setting the state of the electronic money data set of the first safety element as the non-active state; transmitting the electronic currency data set from the first security element to the second security element; checking whether a receipt confirmation from the second security element has been received in the first security element; when the checking step indicates that the first security element has received the receiving confirmation, deleting the sent electronic money data set. The invention also relates to a payment system, a currency register, a security element and a terminal for transmitting electronic currency data set.”
Hupel (EP 4471695 A1) discloses: “The invention relates to a secure transaction unit. The invention also relates to a token reference register. The invention also relates to an electronic transaction system in particular an electronic payment transaction system. The invention may also relate to a method for registering tokens in a token reference register.”
N. Asokan, P. A. Janson, M. Steiner and M. Waidner, "The state of the art in electronic payment systems," in Computer, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 28-35, Sept. 1997.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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