DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Claims
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-7, 21 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 8-14 directed to a system (i.e., machine), and claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “receiving, …, transaction information that indicates a transaction; … asset transfer …, a plurality of items associated with the transaction; … receiving, based on the indicated transaction …, allocation information, wherein a portion of the allocation information allocates an item of the plurality of items to user …; sending, …, the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user …, …; and receiving, based on an indication that the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user …, an asset …, wherein a value of the asset corresponds to a value indicated by the portion of the allocation information, and wherein the asset is a digital asset, and wherein the digital asset is transferred ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities) for performing a direct device-to-device asset transfer. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a first user device”, “a merchant device”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first user device”, “a merchant device”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 8:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 8 recites the at least following limitations of “receiving, …, transaction information that indicates a transaction; receiving, based on the indicated transaction …, asset transfer …, a plurality of items associated with the transaction; … allocation information, wherein a portion of the allocation information allocates an item associated with the transaction to user …; sending, …, the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item of the plurality of items to a user …, …; and receiving, based on an indication that the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user …, an asset …, wherein a value of the asset corresponds to a value indicated by the portion of the allocation information, and wherein the asset is a digital asset, wherein the digital asset is transferred ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities) for performing a direct device-to-device asset transfer. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 8 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a memory”, “a processor”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “a first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a processor”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “a first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 15:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 15 recites the at least following limitations of “receiving, …, transaction information that indicates a transaction; receiving, based on the indicated transaction …, asset transfer …, a plurality of items associated with the transaction; … allocation information, wherein a portion of the allocation information allocates an item associated with the transaction to user …; sending, …, the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item of the plurality items to a user …, …; and receiving, based on an indication that the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user …, an asset …, wherein a value of the asset corresponds to a value indicated by the portion of the allocation information, and wherein the asset is a digital asset, and wherein the digital asset is transferred ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities) for performing a direct device-to-device asset transfer. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 15 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “at least one computing device”, “a first user device”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer wireless transfer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “at least one computing device”, “a first user device”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer wireless transfer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16: simply provide further definition to “the receiving the transaction information that indicates the transaction” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the receiving the transaction information that indicates the transaction comprises at least one of receiving image data that indicates the transaction, decoding an encoded indicator of the transaction information amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a merchant device).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., a merchant device) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17: simply provide further definition to “the receiving the allocation information” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the receiving the allocation information further comprises: causing display of the transaction information that indicates the transaction via the user interface of the first user device; causing, based on an identifier of the user of the second user device indicated by contact information for the first user device corresponding to an identifier of the second user device detected via the first communication protocol, display of an indication of the user of the second user device; and receiving, based on the interaction with the user interface, the allocation information, wherein the interaction with the user interface maps the indication of the user of the second user device to the item associated with the transaction amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the user interface of the first user device; the second user device, the first communication protocol).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the user interface of the first user device; the second user device, the first communication protocol) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4 and 11: simply provide further definition to “the asset” recited in independent claims 1 and 8. Simply stating that wherein the asset comprises at least one of a cryptocurrency token or a non-fungible token do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the user interface of the first user device; the second user device, the first communication protocol) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5, 12, 18: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising sending, to a merchant device, at least one of the asset or the value of the asset), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by a merchant device amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., a merchant device) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 6, 13, 19: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: receiving, by the first user device, a request from the second user device to modify the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user of the second user device; and sending, based on the request to modify the portion of the allocation information, at least a portion of the asset to the second user device), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed the first user device, the second user device amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the first user device, the second user device) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20: simply provide further definition to “the receiving the asset from the account associated with the second user device” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the receiving the asset from the account associated with the second user device further comprises: causing, via a user interface of the second user device; display of an interactive notification that indicates the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user of the second user device; and receiving, based on an interaction with the interactive notification, the indication that the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user of the second user device is confirmed amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the second user interface, a user interface of the second user device).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the second user interface, a user interface of the second user device) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 21: simply provide further definition to “digital wallet” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the digital wallet is an off-chain crypto wallet do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the user interface of the first user device; the second user device, the first communication protocol) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
7. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-21 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that first, the claims are patent eligible under Step 2A, prong 2 because any alleged abstract idea recited by the Examiner is integrated into the practical application of direct device-to-device digital assets transfer. The Office alleges that the claims are not integrated into a practical application. Office Action, p. 3. This analysis fails to consider the claims as a whole and is the type "high level of generality" that Director Squires and the Appeals Review Panel ("ARP") cautioned against in Desjardins. See Ex Parte Desjardins et al., Decision on Request for Rehearing, Appeal 2024- 000567, Sept. 26, 2025, p. 1 (precedential) ("Desjardins"). In Desjardins, the ARP found that the Desjardins claims were patent eligible based on the improvements identified in the Specification that were reflected in the claims, including more efficiency and less complexity. See Id. at p. 9. ("The specification also recites that the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (Al) systems to 'use[e] less of their storage capacity' and enable 'reduced system complexity."') … Like in Desjardins, the improvements identified in the Specification are reflected in the claims. For example, the specification explains that the technical problem to be solved is to easily, securely, and timely transfer assets between user devices … And the claims capture this described technical solution. For example, the claimed steps identify a plurality of user devices associated with a first user device, send allocation information to a second user device via a first communication protocol. A peer-to-peer wireless transfer is established between the first user device and the second user device without the need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device. In addition, the claimed steps store the digital asset in the secure element of the user device. For at least the foregoing reasons, the alleged abstract steps are integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are eligible under Step 2A (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that unlike the claims in Desjardins, independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue include additional elements of “a first user device”, “a merchant device”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-21 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that second, the claims are also patent eligible under Step 2B because they recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. USPTO guidance relating to Step 2B of the subject-matter eligibility analysis directs that an examiner must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) … claim elements that qualify as "significantly more" include those that are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, including non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components. See BASCOM Global Interned v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and MPEP § 2106.05(d). The receiving of an asset sorted locally in a digital wallet by the second user device is not a routine or conventional step conducted by a system for direct device-to-device asset transfer. In addition, the identifying of a second device associated with the first device and in proximity of the first device using a first communication protocol is not a routine or conventional step conducted by a system for direct device-to-device asset transfer. Further, establishing direct device-to-device asset transfer using a second communication protocol without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device is also not a routine or conventional step conducted by a system for direct device-to-device asset transfer … This provides a technical improvement to the field of digital commerce and, in particular to, digital assets transfer between devices. In this manner, each claim when considered as a whole is novel and non-obvious and therefore does not recite a well-understood, routine, or conventional process … The amended independent claims may, in this way, be likened to claims previously found subject-matter eligible by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See, e.g., Exparte Ekambaram, No. 2018-002852 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2019) (technological improvement for automated review validation tied to user interaction with GUI); Ex parte Clementi, No. 2018-004944 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2019) (technical solution improves the accuracy and efficiency of cross-border transactions); Ex parte Sandhu, No. 2019-001911 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020) (platform with user interface improves the functionality and efficiency of swaps trading). Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant claims are patent-eligible, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be reconsidered and withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 4-6).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that unlike the claims in BASCOM, independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first user device”, “a merchant device”, “a plurality of user devices”, “a user interface of the first user device”, “an interaction with a user interface of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a first communication protocol”, “a second communication protocol”, “establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol”, “a digital wallet”, “a secure element of the first user device”, and “a secure element of the second user device” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-21 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
9. The best prior art of record, O'Toole et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0248584), hereinafter, “O'Toole”, in view of MURAO et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0133729), hereinafter, “MURAO”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application amended claim limitations of “sending, based on an indication that the second user device is in proximity to the first user device, the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user of the second user device, to the second user device via a first communication protocol; establishing, without a need for authentication or negotiation communications between the first user device and the second user device, a peer-to-peer wireless transfer between the first user device and the second user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the peer-to-peer is established based on identity data generated for the first communication protocol; and receiving, based on an indication that the portion of the allocation information that allocates the item associated with the transaction to the user of the second user device is confirmed by the second user device, an asset stored locally in a digital wallet by the second user device via the second communication protocol, wherein a value of the asset corresponds to a value indicated by the portion of the allocation information, wherein the asset is a digital asset, and wherein the digital asset is transferred from a secure element of the second user device to a secure element of the first user device.”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. 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 Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights