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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed November 3, 2022. Claims 1-17 are pending in this case. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn pursuant to a Requirement for Restriction issued March 18, 2025. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 18, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on August 18, 2025, is acknowledged.
Priority
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application no. 63/275,117 filed November 3, 2021, entitled “Systems and methods for Cryptocurrency Administration”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The second limitation recites “cryptocurrency to the transferred”. (Perhaps this should be “cryptocurrency to be transferred”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-11 –
Claims 1-11 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 1-11 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite transferring/receiving funds. Specifically, the claims recite receiving notification of a monetary deposit, associating the deposit with a currency, generating a key, establishing a wallet for the funds, generating a withdrawal code for the funds, sending the withdrawal code to the recipient, and providing access to the funds, which is described a commercial or legal interaction/ transaction and is therefore grouped within the within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as the wallet and cellular phone, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the wallet and cellular phone perform the steps or functions of receiving notification of a monetary deposit, associating the deposit with a currency, generating a key, establishing a wallet for the funds, generating a withdrawal code for the funds, sending the withdrawal code to the recipient, and providing access to the funds. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or amount to extra solution activity, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of using a wallet and cellular phone to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of transferring funds. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the wallet and cellular phone network perform the steps or functions of receiving notification of a monetary deposit, associating the deposit with a currency, generating a key, establishing a wallet for the funds, generating a withdrawal code for the funds, sending the withdrawal code to the recipient, and providing access to the funds. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of transferring funds. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 further describe the abstract idea of transferring funds. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1, 708 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2015/0220928) in view of Liberty (US 2016/0055483)
Regarding claim 1 –
Allen discloses a method for transferring a cryptocurrency (abs), the method comprising:
receiving a notification of a monetary deposit from a user wallet intended for a recipient; (par 82)
associating the monetary deposit with the cryptocurrency to the transferred; (par 112)
generating a second private key that is different than a first private key associated with the user wallet; (par 96-97)
establishing a temporary wallet for receiving the monetary deposit intended for the receiver; (par 96)
providing the recipient access to the temporary wallet. (par 50, 96)
Allen does not specifically disclose generating a withdrawal code comprising the second private key.
However Allen does disclose a second private key (par 96)
Liberty discloses, as Allen does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, generating a withdrawal code; (par 107)
sending the withdrawal code to a cellular number associated with a recipient user device associated with the recipient, (par 65, 103, 107) )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the temporary wallet of Allen, with the withdrawal code of Liberty for greater transaction security by adding an additional level.
Regarding claim 7 –
Allen discloses wherein the withdrawal code comprises an active link that, when selected, launch a native wallet application on the recipient user device. (par 96-97)
Regarding claim 8 –
Allen discloses requesting a picture, sound, or video from the recipient user device to activate the withdrawal code. (par 50)
Claims 2, 6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2015/0220928) in view of Liberty (S 2016/0055483) and Lee (US 2024/0386432).
Allen in view of Liberty discloses as above.
Regarding claim 2 –
Lee discloses wherein the second private key is generated by hashing a plurality of local bits, a plurality of memorized bits, a plurality of deleted bits, and a plurality of shared bits. (par 173-174)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the temporary wallet of Allen with the hashing in Lee for added layer of transaction security.
Regarding claim 6 –
Lee discloses activating the user wallet when the withdrawal code is transmitted to the cellular number associated with the recipient user device. (par 50, 96)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the temporary wallet of Allen with the hashing in Lee for added layer of transaction security.
Regarding claim 9 –
Lee discloses wherein the withdrawal code is transmitted using a messaging service over a cellular network. (par 66)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the temporary wallet of Allen with the hashing in Lee for added layer of transaction security.
Regarding claim 10 –
Lee discloses broadcasting to a blockchain for recordation. (par 69, 71, 72)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the temporary wallet of Allen with the hashing in Lee for added layer of transaction security.
Regarding claim 11 –
Lee discloses recovering a balance of a temporary wallet if a private key is not available by:
signing a transaction to generate a signed transaction that transfers all funds in the temporary wallet to a trusted third-wallet, wherein the transaction is not broadcast to a blockchain; (par 51)
asymmetrically encrypting and storing the signed transaction on a trusted third- party server; (par 50)
receiving a notice that access to the wallet has been lost due to a loss of a private key used to access the temporary wallet; (par 50)
confirming, by the trusted third-party, an identity of an owner of the wallet; (par 51)
decrypting the signed transaction; (par 51)
broadcasting the decrypted signed transaction to a mining node; (par 51) and
removing funds from the wallet and returning the funds to the user wallet. (par 50, 96)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the temporary wallet of Allen with the hashing in Lee for added layer of transaction security.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2024/0386432), in view of Liberty (US 2016/0055483), in view of Allen (US 2015/0220928) and further in view of Matthews et al (US 2023/0073859).
Allen in view of Liberty and Lee discloses as above.
Regarding claim 3 -
Matthews discloses recovering the second private key by:
securely storing the plurality of local bits on a user device associated with a sender; (par 37)
encoding the plurality of memorized bits into a personal identification number (PIN); (par 37)
deleting the plurality of deleted bits; (par 37)
storing the plurality of shared bits on a third-party server so that the plurality of shared bits can only be accessed by the sender with authorized access. (par 37)
Lee discloses generating the second private key using the plurality of local bits, the plurality of memorized bits, the PIN, and the plurality of shared bits. (par 173-174)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Allen and Liberty with Lee and Matthews for greater transaction security though additional encryption.
Regarding claim 4 -
Lee discloses receiving the plurality of shared bits from the third-party server; (par 175)
joining the plurality of local bits with the plurality of memorized bits and the plurality of shared bits; (par 175) and
brute forcing the deleted bits with the plurality of local bits, the plurality of memorized bits, and the plurality of shared bits until a match is determined. (par 175)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Allen and Liberty with Lee and Matthews for greater transaction security though additional encryption.
Regarding claim 5 -
Lee discloses wherein the shared bits are stored on a currency transfer server. (par 227, 240)
Allen discloses wherein the wallet is a temporary wallet (par 96).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lee with the temporary wallet of Allen, for greater transaction security by not having the same wallet and therefore the same wallet address available over and over again.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singhal et al (US 2022/0343302) disclose inter wallet transactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697