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 .
Acknowledgments
The reply filed 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 7 and 15, in the reply filed on 03/02/2026, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 7 and 15 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 11/03/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 7 and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/02/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees because claim 1 requires verifying receipt of the
amount of the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets via a
nonreal-time verification process.
The portions of Brock the Examiner points to are regarding a nonreal time period to
verify the transaction between a customer and a merchant recorded on the blockchain not receipt of funds provided from customer to the payment service. This is highlighted in Brock's Figure 7A below.
As shown above, at step 512, the payment service reduces the balance of the customer's
wallet. The payment service thus has access to the customer's wallet and funds therein at the time of transacting with the merchant. At step 320, the payment service confirms the transaction (between the customer and the merchant). Therefore, Brock does not teach "verifying, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, receipt of the amount of the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets via a nonreal-time verification process."”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the current claim language is not claiming verifying receipt of funds provided from customer to the payment service, as suggested by the remarks. The current claim language is claiming verifying receipt of the amount of the at least the portion of the digital assets. The claim language does not require that the receipt of the amount is between the customer and payment service, or in the case of the claim language, a computing entity and the digital asset-based interaction computing entity. Under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, “receipt of the amount of the at least the portion…” is interpreted to mean proof of payment/the amount. Brock et al. U.S. 10,540,639 discloses in Col. 16, lines 9-12 – “payment service 108 can publish the transaction in private blockchain 230 to public blockchain 220 where miners can verify the transactions and record the transactions in blocks on public blockchain 220.” Therefore, Brock discloses the payment service, i.e. digital asset-based interaction computing entity, is at least initiating the verification process. Since the claim language does not specify how the “receipt of the amount of the at least the portion…” is verified, the payment service at least initiating the verification process can reasonably read upon the current claim language. Furthermore, the transaction to be verified is “receipt of the amount of the at least the portion…” because the transaction serves as proof of the amount of digital assets transferred Col. 15, line 66 – Col. 16, line 1. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because 1) the remarks are based on a suggested limitation that is not being claimed, and 2) under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, Brock reads on the current claim language as discussed above, and further detailed below. Further explanations and citations are provided below for purposes of clarification without changing the grounds of the prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding et al. U.S. 2020/0013045 (herein as “Spalding”) in view of Rubin U.S. 2018/0315072, and further in view of Brock et al. U.S. 10,540,639 (herein as “Brock”).
Re Claim 1, Spalding discloses a method comprises:
[…]
establishing, by the issuing entity, a digital asset backing account with a digital asset backing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system ([0037] – “a secure stake pool,” i.e. digital asset backing account);
obtaining, by the issuing entity, an amount of system digital assets from a digital asset-based interaction computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system ([0077] – “The secure stake pool 60 includes collateral cryptocurrency 62 (i.e. obtaining). The collateral cryptocurrency 62 is a known and trusted form of cryptocurrency that has been pledged by staking computing devices…of the secure & trusted data communication system 10”);
depositing, by the issuing entity, the amount of the system digital assets in the digital asset backing account ([0079] – “Staking computing devices…have pledged…collateral cryptocurrency…Once a staking computing device…pledges collateral cryptocurrency, the pledged collateral cryptocurrency is owned and controlled (i.e. depositing) by the secure conveyance device 14 via the secure state pool 60”);
backing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the issuing entity account-based digital assets with the amount of the system digital assets to produce backed issuing entity account-based assets that are a spendable currency within the digital asset-based interaction system ([0065] – “With the first cryptocurrency (i.e. issuing entity account based-digital assets) backed by collateral cryptocurrency,” i.e. system digital assets, thereby producing the now backed first cryptocurrency, i.e. backed issuing entity account-based assets, [0069] – “initiate purchase of a product or service and payment using the first cryptocurrency,” i.e. spendable currency);
initiating, by a first computing entity of the one or more computing entities, an issuance triggering action recognized by the issuing entity ([0061] – “computing device 64 sends a request 76 (i.e. issuance triggering action)…The request 76 is requesting a digital wallet…to be recognized and accepted within the secure and trusted data communication system 10”);
issuing, by the issuing entity, at least a portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets to the first computing entity based on the triggering action [0065] – “the digital wallet…is recognized and accepted for purposes of financial transactions using the first cryptocurrency”;
Under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, the plain meaning of “issuing” means “to put forth or distribute usually officially, or to send out for sale or circulation, or to cause to come forth” (merriam-webster.com). Enabling the digital wallet to use the first cryptocurrency for financial transactions after backing the first cryptocurrency is analogous to “issuing” the “backed issuing entity account-based digital assets to the first computing entity” because the first cryptocurrency is now put forth for use by the digital wallet of the computing device, i.e. issued to the first computing entity.
storing, by the first computing entity, the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets ([0058] – “computing device 64 (i.e. first computing entity) executes a digital wallet application…that stores a first cryptocurrency,” i.e. backed issuing entity account-based digital assets);
sending, by the first computing entity, an amount of the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets to the digital asset-based interaction computing entity to initiate a digital asset-based interaction with a second computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system, wherein the second computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system accepts desired assets ([0071] – “The user computing device 78 sends…the amount of first cryptocurrency to cover the requested purchase to the secure data conveyance device 14,” [0070] – the requested purchase is with the merchant computing entity, i.e. second computing entity, [0048] – “merchant computing entity 16…includes instructions for securely receiving cryptocurrency payments”);
locking, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, at least a portion of the amount of the system digital assets in the digital asset backing account to back the digital asset-based interaction [0064] – “designating the set of units of collateral cryptocurrency 62 from collateral cryptocurrency 62 stored…to back its own transactions”;
[…]
unlocking, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the at least the portion of the amount of system digital assets ([0071] – “If the amount of first cryptocurrency to cover the requested purchase…is not received…obtain an amount of collateral cryptocurrency 62…from secure stake pool 60 substantially equal to the amount of the first cryptocurrency to cover the requested purchase,” i.e. unlocked).
Examiner is interpreting any device(s) in Figs 1-4 of Spalding to be analogous to the claimed entities. The instant specification suggests in [0239] – “The boundaries and sequence of these functional building blocks and method steps have been arbitrarily defined herein for convenience of description. Alternate boundaries and sequences can be defined so long as the specified functions and relationships are appropriately performed.” Therefore, since Spalding discloses all of the method steps (or operational instructions as in the case of independent claim 9) above, such interpretation is supported by the instant specification.
However, Spalding does not expressly disclose the following:
generating, by an issuing entity of a digital asset-based interaction system, issuing entity account-based digital assets.
Rubin discloses a method of facilitating the issuance, redemption, and management of cryptocurrency-based loyalty points. Specifically, Rubin discloses
generating, by an issuing entity of a digital asset-based interaction system, issuing entity account-based digital assets ([0068] – “generating, using the processing device, a plurality of cryptocurrency-based loyalty tokens,” i.e. digital assets, [0073]-[0075] – the loyalty tokens can be redeemed for product or service, i.e. currency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Spalding’s method and system for secure and trusted cryptocurrency transactions with the teachings of generating digital assets in Rubin. The combination is rendered obvious because generating digital assets for use in transactions is a known technique, and therefore applying it to the method and system of Spalding would predictably yield the result of supplying digital assets to the circulation so that they can be used in executing transactions.
However, Spalding in view of Rubin do not explicitly teach
providing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the desired assets to the second computing entity via a real-time digital asset-based interaction process;
verifying, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, receipt of the amount of the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets via a nonreal-time verification process.
Brock discloses a cryptocurrency payment network. Specifically, Brock discloses
providing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the desired assets to the second computing entity via a real-time digital asset-based interaction process (Fig. 4A, 316 – credit merchant ledger in US dollars, Col. 2, lines 58-60 – “payment service…can facilitate real-time transactions”);
verifying, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, receipt of the amount of the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets via a nonreal-time verification process (Col. 16, lines 9-12 – “payment service 108 can publish transactions…to public blockchains 220 where miners can verify the transactions,” the payment service at least initiates the verification process by publishing the transaction to the public blockchain, therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, the payment service at least initiating the verifying process reads on “verifying, by…,” Col. 15, line 66-Col. 16, line 1 – “Private blockchain 230 can function to record…values of cryptocurrency transferred,” therefore, the transaction being published from the private blockchain 230 to public blockchain 220 includes values of cryptocurrency transferred, i.e. receipt of the amount…, or proof of the amount, Col. 17, lines 13-15 – “While public blockchain might still take minutes or an hour to record the transaction to the blockchain,” i.e. nonreal-time verification process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spalding in view of Rubin’s method and system for secure and trusted cryptocurrency transactions with the teachings of providing the desired assets via a real-time process using the payment service and verifying the receipt of the amount via a nonreal-time process using blockchain in Brock. One would be motivated to make this combination because it is this presence of a private ledger that is used for real-time transactions and maintained by the payment service, combined with updates to the public ledger at other times, that allows for extremely fast transactions using cryptocurrency to be achieved Brock, Col. 9, lines 16-20.
Re Claim 2, Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock teach the method of claim 1, and Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock further teach wherein the real-time digital asset-based interaction process comprises:
exchanging, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the amount of the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets for a substantially equivalent amount of the desired assets Brock, Col. 12, lines 50-51 – “auto-convert from cryptocurrency to US dollars”; and
sending, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the amount of the desired assets to the second computing entity Brock, Col. 13, lines 33-35 – “payment service 108…credits merchant 102’s fiat currency ledger 108 with the value owed.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spalding in view of Rubin’s method and system for secure and trusted cryptocurrency transactions with the teachings of exchanging currency during a financial transaction between a user device and merchant POS in Brock. One would be motivated to make this combination because it would increase the diversity of currencies, including fiat currencies, being accepted in a payment service Brock, Col. 2, lines 49-50.
Re Claim 3, Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock teach the method of claim 1, and Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock further teach further comprises:
determining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, that the receipt of the amount of the at least the portion of the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets is not verified via the nonreal-time verification process (Spalding, [0071] – if the amount of first cryptocurrency for requested purchase is not received within a period of time, collateral cryptocurrency may be used, the period of time could span from seconds to minutes, and therefore is analogous to a nonreal-time verification process since the determination is not made immediately, or almost immediately); and
consuming, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the at least the portion of the amount of system digital assets (Spalding [0039], [0071] – transactions may be completed with collateral currency, i.e. consuming).
Re Claim 4, Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock teach the method of claim 1, and Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock further teach wherein the issuing entity account-based digital assets are representative of one or more of: incentive units; a monetary value; frequent flyer miles; customer loyalty points; a status level of the first computing entity; and store credit associated with the issuing entity Rubin, [0036] – “cryptocurrency-based loyalty tokens may represent one or more loyalty points, such as those offered by hotel chains, airlines…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spalding’s method and system for secure and trusted cryptocurrency transactions with the teachings of cryptocurrency-based loyalty tokens representative of loyalty points in Rubin. One would be motivated to make this combination because it would simplify the points redemption process and allow a user to redeem with different hotels and airlines that have different policies, procedures, restrictions, etc. Rubin [0009], [0011].
Re Claim 5, Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock teach the method of claim 1, and Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock further teach wherein the issuance triggering action includes one or more of:
a successful transaction between the first computing entity and the issuing entity;
an establishment of a new membership between the first computing entity and the issuing entity (Spalding, [0061] – computing device sends a request, i.e. issuance triggering action, for a digital wallet to be recognized and accepted within the system, [0065] – computing device is recognized and accepted within the system for financial transactions);
a length of time that the first computing entity has been associated with the issuing entity; and
an amount of assets the first computing entity has spent with the issuing entity.
Re Claim 6, Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock teach the method of claim 1, and Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock further teach wherein the digital asset-based interaction includes one or more of: a gift; a loan; an agreement; identity verification; an exchange of data; a ticket verification; and a digital payment transaction (Spalding, [0069] – digital payment transaction).
Re Claim 7, Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock teach the method of claim 1, and Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock further teach wherein the amount of system digital assets is determined based on one or more of: size of the issuing entity account-based digital assets base; velocity of the issuing entity account-based digital assets; and a quantity of the issuing entity account-based digital assets (Spalding, Fig. 10, step 148 – obtaining collateral cryptocurrency for a plurality of units for first cryptocurrency based on the established per unit value of the first cryptocurrency, i.e. a quantity).
Re Claim 8, Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock the method of claim 1, and Spalding in view of Rubin and Brock further teach wherein the amount of the system digital assets is substantially equivalent to the backed issuing entity account-based digital assets Spalding, [0071].
Re Claims 9-16, they are the computer readable memory claims of method claims 1-8, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as method claims 1-8. Furthermore, Spalding discloses a computer readable memory that includes one or more memory elements [0127]. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights