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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 02, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on March 02, 2026. Claims 1-36 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 28, 30, and 36 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claim 9 has been canceled, with claims 4, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23-27, 29, and 33-35 remaining canceled. Claims 1 and 36 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claim 1. Thus claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 28, 30-32, and 36 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the claims are patent eligible because the claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field; the claims at hand are aimed at providing for the securing of cryptocurrency transactions and cryptocurrency wallets, which is an improvement to technology or a technical field; the claims at hand provide for the secure transfer of cryptocurrency funds from a limited access cryptocurrency wallet, without having to physically attend to it; the claimed subject matter addresses this risk of physical loss, be it temporary or permanent, by having the limited access cryptocurrency wallet performing, in advance, all of the following: creating provisional account(s) allocated for respective recipient(s ), transferring an overall value of cryptocurrency from its associated account associated to the provisional account(s), -generating a plurality of signed transactions for transferring a plurality of partial values of cryptocurrency from the provisional account(s) to receiving account(s) associated with the recipient(s), and -transmitting the plurality of signed transactions to a network connected device, where later, in real time, the network connected device can transmit one or more of the plurality of signed transactions for transferring cryptocurrency from the provisional account(s) to the receiving account(s); the claimed subject matter thus provides in this manner for the recoverability of the cryptocurrency funds associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet in any event, regardless of whether it can be physically accessed or not; the claimed subject matter improves security in at least the following aspects: any risk of losing cryptocurrency funds stored in the provisional account(s) is limited to the overall value transferred to each of the provisional account(s), since the signed transactions are signed in advance for transferring cryptocurrency funds from the provisional account(s) only to the receiving account(s) associated with the specific recipient(s), these cryptocurrency funds may not be fraudulently used for other purposes, since the signed transactions are signed in advance for transferring cryptocurrency funds from the provisional account(s) only to the receiving account(s) associated with the specific recipient(s). these signed transactions cannot be altered by a potential malicious party in attempt to direct the cryptocurrency funds stored in the provisional account(s) to other account(s), security and robustness of the signed transactions may be further increased using cybersecurity measures, e.g., encryption of the signatures etc.; and it is therefore manifestly evident that the claimed subject matter improves upon technology or the technical field of cryptocurrency transactions and cryptocurrency wallets”.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240013212 A1, para 2), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘212 A1, para 2), discloses that the invention relates to transferring funds from a wallet, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “receiving, by a network connected device, a plurality of signed transactions generated and transmitted by at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet having transmit-only network connectivity, wherein the at least one processor generates and transmits the plurality of signed transactions by performing the operations of: creating at least one provisional account allocated for at least one recipient; transmitting at least one transaction to transfer an overall value of cryptocurrency from an account associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet to the at least one provisional account, wherein the at least one transaction is transmitted to at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording the at least one transaction in a blockchain maintained by the plurality of networked computing nodes; generating a plurality of signed transactions for transferring a plurality of partial values of cryptocurrency from the at least one provisional account to at least one receiving account associated with the at least one recipient, a sum of the plurality of partial values does not exceed the overall value; and transmitting the plurality of signed transactions to the network connected device, transmitting, by the network connected device, at least one of the plurality of signed transactions for transferring cryptocurrency from the at least one provisional account to the at least one receiving account”, which represent the abstract idea of “transferring funds between accounts”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a network connected device”, “at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet having transmit-only network connectivity, wherein the at least one processor generates and transmits the plurality of signed transactions by performing the operations of: …”, “cryptocurrency”, and “wherein the at least one transaction is transmitted to at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording the at least one transaction in a blockchain maintained by the plurality of networked computing nodes”, which amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring funds between accounts”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “transferring funds between accounts”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring funds between accounts.” The claim is not directed to improving computers functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “transferring funds between accounts”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “transferring funds between accounts”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a transferring funds between accounts concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 36 also recites the abstract idea of “transferring funds between accounts”, as well as the additional elements of “a system for transferring cryptocurrency from a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, comprising: a limited access cryptocurrency wallet, and a network connected device, wherein the limited access cryptocurrency wallet comprises: a non-transitory storage medium storing a code; and at least one processor coupled to the non-transitory storage medium, the at least one processor executes the code, the code comprising code instructions which when executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor performs the operations of: …”, “cryptocurrency”, “wherein the at least one transaction is transmitted to at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording the at least one transaction in a blockchain maintained by the plurality of networked computing nodes”, and “the network connected device, wherein the network connected device comprises: at least one processor performing the operations of: …”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring funds between accounts”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “transferring funds between accounts” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “a non-transitory storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 36 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, for paragraph 28 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, moot. Applicant has amended claim 1 to now recite “transmitting, by the network connected device, at least one of the plurality of signed transactions for transferring cryptocurrency from the at least one provisional account to the at least one receiving account”, which has eliminated the claim language “without requiring a user physically attending to the limited access cryptocurrency wallet”. Support for the limitation “transmitting, by the network connected device, at least one of the plurality of signed transactions for transferring cryptocurrency from the at least one provisional account to the at least one receiving account”, is found in specification, (PG Pub US 20240013212 A1, para 148). Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 36. Therefore, the written description requirement is met. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, paragraph 28 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, paragraph 30, of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, moot. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “transmitting at least one transaction …, wherein the at least one transaction is transmitted to at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording …”, eliminating the claim language “responsive to the transmitting”, which was the basis for the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis rejection. Additionally, similar language was recited in claims 18 and 36, with these claims being adequately amended similar to claim 1. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 30, of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Means-Plus-Function, paragraph 31, of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Means-Plus-Function, moot. Claims 5, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended to eliminate the claim language “configured to” so the claim limitations for these claims no longer can be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Means-Plus-Function, paragraph 31, of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 32, of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “transmitting at least one transaction … recording the at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording the at least one transaction in a blockchain maintained by the plurality of networked computing nodes”, eliminating the claim language “is performed by at least one of the plurality of networked computing nodes”, which was the basis for the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope rejection. Additionally, similar language was recited in claim 36, with this claim being adequately amended similar to claim 1. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 32, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 36 has been amended to recite “at least one processor coupled to the non-transitory storage medium, the at least one processor executes the code, the code comprising code instructions which when executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor performs the operations of: …”, which no longer represents the intended uses of the at least one processor. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claim 36 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 15, 2025, and in the Non-Final Office Action dated January 13, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for a lack of a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated January 13, 2025. After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious “using at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet having transmit-only network connectivity, the at least one processor is used for: creating at least one provisional account …; transmitting at least one transaction to transfer a predefined overall value of cryptocurrency from an account associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet …, the at least one transaction is recorded in a blockchain …; generating a plurality of signed transactions for transferring a plurality of predefined partial values of cryptocurrency from the at least one provisional account to at least one receiving account …; transmitting the plurality of signed transactions … without physically attending to the limited access cryptocurrency wallet”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 28, 30-32 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 28, and 30-32 are directed to a “method”, and claim 36 is directed to “system”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “transferring funds between accounts”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites the method limitations “receiving, by a network connected device, a plurality of signed transactions generated and transmitted by at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet having transmit-only network connectivity, wherein the at least one processor generates and transmits the plurality of signed transactions by performing the operations of: creating at least one provisional account allocated for at least one recipient; transmitting at least one transaction to transfer an overall value of cryptocurrency from an account associated with the limited access cryptocurrency wallet to the at least one provisional account, wherein the at least one transaction is transmitted to at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording the at least one transaction in a blockchain maintained by the plurality of networked computing nodes; generating a plurality of signed transactions for transferring a plurality of partial values of cryptocurrency from the at least one provisional account to at least one receiving account associated with the at least one recipient, a sum of the plurality of partial values does not exceed the overall value; and transmitting the plurality of signed transactions to the network connected device, transmitting, by the network connected device, at least one of the plurality of signed transactions for transferring cryptocurrency from the at least one provisional account to the at least one receiving account”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a network connected device”, “at least one processor of a limited access cryptocurrency wallet having transmit-only network connectivity, wherein the at least one processor generates and transmits the plurality of signed transactions by performing the operations of: …”, “cryptocurrency”, and “wherein the at least one transaction is transmitted to at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording the at least one transaction in a blockchain maintained by the plurality of networked computing nodes”, which amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring funds between accounts.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “transferring funds between accounts” using computer technology (e.g., “a blockchain” and “a network connected device”). Therefore, the use of this additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 36 also recites the abstract idea of “transferring funds between accounts”, as well as the additional elements of “a system for transferring cryptocurrency from a limited access cryptocurrency wallet device, comprising: a limited access cryptocurrency wallet, and a network connected device, wherein the limited access cryptocurrency wallet comprises: a non-transitory storage medium storing a code; and at least one processor coupled to the non-transitory storage medium, the at least one processor executes the code, the code comprising code instructions which when executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor performs the operations of: …”, “cryptocurrency”, “wherein the at least one transaction is transmitted to at least one of a plurality of networked computing nodes for recording the at least one transaction in a blockchain maintained by the plurality of networked computing nodes”, and “the network connected device, wherein the network connected device comprises: at least one processor performing the operations of: …”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring funds between accounts.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “transferring funds between accounts” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “a non-transitory storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 36 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 28, and 30-32 further describe the abstract idea of “transferring funds between accounts”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 and 36.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 13, 15-16, 18, 22, 28, 30, and 32 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transferring funds between accounts”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 11 recites a new additional element of “another network connected device”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 20 recites new additional elements of “a transaction based cryptocurrency (UTXO)” (besides the abstract idea “a hierarchical Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)”), which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 31 recites a new additional element of “a portable storage device”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 28, 30-32 and 36 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hyuga et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190378119 A1)
Wallet Device For Cryptocurrency And Method Of Signature For The Use Thereof
Hyuga recites a wallet device comprising, a central control server device to accept a trading request data from external, a transaction manage device, a hot wallet server device, a cold wallet server device and a remote signature device, the transaction manager device comprising unit to create/output transaction data conforming to the bitcoin network in the internet, is located in-between the central server device creating internal format model transaction and other devices group of hot wallet server device, cold wallet server device and the remote signature device performing to sign multi-signatures, providing more secured wallet device for cryptocurrency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights