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 .
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 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.
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s response received on 3/2/2026 (“Amendment”).
Claims 1 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are pending.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/976,639 (“Parent Application”) filed on 10/28/2022 which is a continuation of U.S. application no. 16/079,078, filed 8/22/2018, now U.S. Patent 11,488,120 ("Parent Application"). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
IDS received on 2/26/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Official Notice Taken in Last Office Action
As official notice was taken in the previous office action, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner's assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate (see MPEP 2144.03 C). The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art include: determining quantities to purchased are often based on one or both of the maximum value of the purchaser is willing to pay for and minimum value that the seller is willing to sell for.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claim 1, the claim is rejected as the Specification does not show support for “revoking the first invitation if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the first invitation has elapsed; or revoking the second invitation if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the second invitation has elapsed; or otherwise, causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger”.
While the specification show support on inclusion of deadline(s) in the invitation and that “the deadline condition may cause the invitation to be revoked at the deadline in the event that an exchange has not been finalized based on the invitation” (see page 23, lines 10-11), there is no support that the condition is “if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the first invitation has elapsed”, “if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the second invitation has elapsed” and “otherwise [i.e., contingent of the two conditions], causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger”. In other words, the condition is not contingent on whether the first exchange transaction is or not generated prior to deadline(s).
Claim 21 is significantly similar to claim 1, hence claim 21 is also rejected.
The dependent claim(s) are rejected as they depend on claim 1 or claim 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 21, the claim recites in part:
at least one of:
revoking the first invitation if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the first invitation has elapsed; or
revoking the second invitation if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the second invitation has elapsed
otherwise, causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger.
Here, given the claim construction that excludes the causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger outside of at least one of, it is unclear what the “otherwise” pertains to. The applicant is pointed to claim 1 that includes the step of otherwise, causing the first exchange … as part of “at least one of” clause.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will apply claim 1 interpretation to claim 21 on the claim limitation in question.
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, 2, and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1, 2, and 4-20 (group I) are directed to a method (i.e. process) while claim 21 (group II) directed to a processing system. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A computer implemented method for performing a transfer, the method comprising:
1) scanning entries in a distributed hash table distributed across a first network, the distributed hash table comprising a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an invitation to perform an exchange and a link to a transaction on a peer-to-peer distributed ledger distributed across a second network, each invitation including metadata comprising an indication of entities to be exchanged and one or more conditions for the exchange, each invitation further comprising a deadline condition which causes the invitation to be revoked at a deadline in an event that the exchange has not been finalized;
2) determining a match between a first set of metadata in a first invitation of a first entry from a first user and a second set of metadata in a second invitation of a second entry from a second user, the determining comprising:
identifying a match between indications of entities to be exchanged in the first and second invitations, and
identifying a match between one or more of the conditions of the first invitation and one or more of the conditions of the second invitation;
3) generating a first exchange transaction; and
4) broadcasting, over the second network, the first exchange transaction for inclusion on the peer- to-peer distributed ledger, wherein the first exchange transaction comprises: an indication of a first quantity of a cryptocurrency to be transferred, a first input provided from an output of a transaction on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger linked to the first entry, a first script, a first user signature based on a first user private key associated with the first user, a first third party signature based on a first third-party private key associated with a first third-party, a first output indicating a transfer of a first quantity of the first entity from the first user to the second user, wherein the first script comprises: the first set of metadata, a first user public key associated with the first user, the first user public key being a cryptographic pair with the first user private key, and a first third-party public key associated with the first third-party, the first third-party public key being a cryptographic pair with the first third-party private key; and
5) at least one of:
revoking the first invitation if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the first invitation has elapsed;
revoking the second invitation if the first exchange transaction is not generated before the deadline of the second invitation has elapsed; or
otherwise, causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))(underlined represent newly added limitation in the amendment)
The claim recites a process for performing a transfer (preamble), specifically methods comprising 1) scanning stored records comprising a plurality of entries, wherein each of the entry comprises information including an invitation (i.e., offers and conditions) and description of object of exchange and one or more condition (requirement) for the exchange, 2) determining a match between a first set of metadata in a first invitation of a first entry from a first user and a second set of metadata in a second invitation of a second entry from a second user by identifying a match between indications of entities to be exchanged in the first and second invitations (Alice’s offers $5 for apples and a Bob’s offers apples for $5) and identifying a match between one or more of the conditions of the first invitations and one or more of the conditions of the second invitation (i.e., price conditions), 3) generating a first exchange, and 4) broadcasting (i.e., transmitting) to participants the generated first exchange for ledgering the first exchange. As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activities, e.g. commercial activities that includes economic practices of facilitating of exchanges/trades.
The claim further recites the content of first exchange transaction, however, the description is non-functional descriptive material.
The claim in 5) introduces a concept of placing deadline in the offer(s) (invitations) and revoking of the first exchange transaction if any one of deadline of the invitations has elapsed or causing ledgering of the first exchange transaction. The Specification describes this business centric concept on page 23, lines 6-11, particularly that the invitation include deadline condition that may cause the invitation to be revoked at the deadline in the event that an exchange has not been finalised based on the invitation. However, the concept of including deadline in an invitation (i.e., offer contract that offers $100 for an item with completion deadline on the delivery of the item), prepaying $100, revoking the offer contract in the event the item is not delivered by the completion deadline (i.e., paying back the prepaid to the payer thereby cancelling the offer contract). As such, the claim further recites certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., contractual/legal interaction) and thus recites an abstract idea.
Claim 21 is significantly similar to claim 1, hence claim 21 also recites abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e. distributed hash table distributed across a first network, a peer-to-peer distributed ledger distributed across a second network, memory comprising one or more memory units, and processing apparatus comprising one or more processing units, are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea as described above in the Step 2A (prong 1), and/or merely uses a computer (i.e., server or processor) as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations do not represent: Improvements to the functioning of the server or the components of the server, or to any other technology or technical field (i.e., blockchain) - see MPEP 2106.05(a); or Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer system.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims further expand and recite abstract idea and do not include further additional elements.
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2016/0092988 (“Letourneau”) in view of US Patent Publication No. 2017/0091232 (“Ghanbari”), US Patent No. 7,644,019 (“Woda”).
Per claims 1, 16, 17, and 21, Letourneau teaches a computer implemented method for performing a transfer (see ¶0001, methods for trading digital assets), the method comprising:
scanning entries in a database distributed across a first network, the distributed hash table comprising a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an invitation to perform an exchange and a link to a transaction on a peer-to-peer distributed ledger distributed across a second network, each invitation including metadata comprising an indication of entities to be exchanged and one or more conditions for the exchange (see ¶0051, the trade matching specifications and instructions may be embedded in the block chain of an existing or dedicated network, such as a smart contract, similarly to the smart contracts of the Ethereum network; ¶0052; ¶0056, Order Market Databases; ¶0058, Once the trade matching process of the central processing server finds a partial, or complete match between a Buy and a Sell order, it may relay to each respective user terminal (i.e. the Buyer's user terminal and the Seller's user terminal) the detailed specifications of the matching trade with a unique transaction identifier; ¶0082-¶0083);
determining a match between a first set of metadata in a first invitation of a first entry from a first user and a second set of metadata in a second invitation of a second entry from a second user, the determining comprising:
identifying a match between indications of entities to be exchanged in the first and second invitations (see ¶0058, once the trade matching process of the central processing server finds a partial, or complete match between a Buy and a Sell order; ¶0060, provide the corresponding matching specifications; ¶0082, trade a given amount of electronic assets for different type of electronic asset, at a trading rate or price; ¶0082, the type of electronic asset to trade, amount of electronic asset to Buy or Sell, the desired exchange rate/price of the trade, etc.; ¶0085, once a trade match has been found; ¶0096, buy or purchase a specific quantity of a first type of asset in exchange for a second type of asset at a specific exchange rate; ¶0100-¶0101; ¶0120, once a trade match has been found (in terms of quantities and price)); and
identifying a match between one or more of the conditions of the first invitation and one or more of the conditions of the second invitation identifying a match between indications of entities to be exchanged in the first and second invitations (see ¶0058, once the trade matching process of the central processing server finds a partial, or complete match between a Buy and a Sell order; ¶0060, provide the corresponding matching specifications; ¶0082, trade a given amount of electronic assets for different type of electronic asset, at a trading rate or price; ¶0082, the type of electronic asset to trade, amount of electronic asset to Buy or Sell, the desired exchange rate/price of the trade, etc.; ¶0085, once a trade match has been found; ¶0096, buy or purchase a specific quantity of a first type of asset in exchange for a second type of asset at a specific exchange rate; ¶0100-¶0101; ¶0120, once a trade match has been found (in terms of quantities and price));
generating a first exchange transaction; and broadcasting, over the second network, the first exchange transaction for inclusion on a P2P distributed ledger (see Fig. 1; ¶0042, block chain/distributed ledger; ¶0066, Once the information is verified, the central processing server may broadcast both transactions on the respective networks and broadcast the trading fee transaction; ¶0095; ¶0127, once the central processing server or exchange has received both signed transactions … the central processing server or exchange may then broadcast the assets at the same time on the respective networks, wherein the first exchange transaction);
wherein one or more of the entities is one of the following a) bitcoin; b) a contract; c) goods; d) services (claim 16) wherein the contract is for one or more of the following: a) fiat currency; b) title deeds; c) tickets; d) goods; and/or e) services (claim 17)(see ¶0003, allow trading of one type of electronic currency, such as bitcoin, for another type; ¶0045; ¶0051).
Letourneau further teaches a processor or group of processors and memory (see ¶0071; ¶0129).
Letourneau does not specifically teach that the database is distributed hash table distributed across a first network.
Ghanbari, however, teaches storing of database in the form of a distributed hash table distributed across a first network (see ¶0104, database can be implemented as a distributed hash table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to incorporate the distributed hash table in Letourneau as the combination/substation can avoid recovering from a persisted database when a node fails (see ¶0104).
The combination of Letourneau and Ghanbari does not specifically teach that each invitation further comprises a deadline condition which causes the invitation to be revoked at a deadline in an event that the exchange has not been finalized; revoking the first invitation if the exchange does not occur before the deadline of the first invitation has elapsed or revoking the second invitation if the exchange is does not occur before the deadline of the first invitation.
Woda, however, teaches contract that comprises a deadline condition which causes the contract to be revoked at a deadline in an event that the exchange has not been finalized revoking the first invitation if the exchange does not occur before the deadline of the first invitation has elapsed or revoking the second invitation if the exchange is does not occur before the deadline of the first invitation (see col. 3 lines 34-43, contract with contract terms, description of goods, a sale price, a delivery date, a specified payment method, etc., between the buyer and seller. According to such contractual terms, the buyer has a duty to make payment for the goods involved and the seller has a duty to deliver the goods; col 3 lines 32-45, violation of terms occurs, the system compensates the buyer for the payment that was made; col. 6 lines 19-34, protection of the seller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the technique of including deadline in the contract and revoke the offer based on the deadline as taught by Woda to the combination of Letourneau and Ghanbari as the combination protects both parties, i.e., the first user and the second user.
In reference to the claim limitation of “otherwise, causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger”, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda by teaching of broadcasting of the transaction and recording in Letourneau (¶0066; ¶0037, recorded on a distributed on a distributed blockchain ledger; ¶0042, ledger that records transaction; ¶0085, record all validated transactions) and Woda disclosing of the revoking of the transaction if deadline(s) has , the combination teaches this limitation. Furthermore, “causing …” does not move to distinguish over prior art as the limitation is intended result/use.
The combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda does not specifically teach that each entry comprising a link to a transaction on a peer-to-peer distributed ledger distributed across a second network and that the first exchange transaction comprises the specifics as recited in the claim, specifically that the first exchange transaction comprises an indication of a first quantity of a cryptocurrency to be transferred, a first input provided from an output of a transaction on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger linked to the first entry, a first script, a first user signature based on a first user private key associated with the first user, a first third party signature based on a first third-party private key associated with a first third-party, a first output indicating a transfer of a first quantity of the first entity from the first user to the second user, wherein the first script comprises: the first set of metadata, a first user public key associated with the first user, the first user public key being a cryptographic pair with the first user private key, and a first third-party public key associated with the first third-party, the first third-party public key being a cryptographic pair with the first third-party private key.
However, description of what the first exchange transaction comprises is non-functional descriptive material that do not move to distinguish over prior art. It would have been within the realm of obviousness to include any known information in as information included in the transaction to the network for recording the exchange transaction.
As per claim 2, the claim is a mere duplication of claim 1 involving a second exchange transaction.
As per claim 4, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda further teaches wherein identifying a match between indications of entities to be exchanged in the first and second invitations comprises: identifying a match between a requested entity in the first invitation and an offered entity in the second invitation; and identifying a match between an offered entity in the first invitation and a requested entity in the second invitation (see Letourneau: ¶0058, once the trade matching process of the central processing server finds a partial, or complete match between a Buy and a Sell order; ¶0060, provide the corresponding matching specifications; ¶0082, trade a given amount of electronic assets for different type of electronic asset, at a trading rate or price; ¶0082, the type of electronic asset to trade, amount of electronic asset to Buy or Sell, the desired exchange rate/price of the trade, etc.; ¶0085, once a trade match has been found; ¶0096, buy or purchase a specific quantity of a first type of asset in exchange for a second type of asset at a specific exchange rate; ¶0100-¶0101; ¶0120, once a trade match has been found (in terms of quantities and price)).
As per claim 13, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda further teaches wherein the method is performed by a matching service provider (e.g. central processing server) (see Letourneau:¶0006).
As per claim 14, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda does not specifically teach therein the first third-party is an escrow service provider and/or the second third-party is an escrow service provider. However, descriptions of the first service provider and the second third-party do not move to distinguish over prior art as the descriptions do not affect the positively recited step(s) in the claim.
As per claims 19 and 20, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda does not specifically wherein the first and/or second set of metadata is provided in a redeem script (claim 19); wherein the first and/or second set of metadata is provided in the script at a location which is designated in a blockchain protocol as a location for a cryptographic key (claim 20). However, the description of how the first and/or second set of metadata is provided do not further move to distinguish over prior art as the description(s) do not affect the positively recited step(s) in a manipulative sense.
Claims 5-7, 9-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Letourneau”, “Ghanbari”, and “Woda” as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 2002/0032633 (“Okumura”).
As per claim 5, while the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda teaches wherein identifying a match between one or more of the conditions of the first invitation and one or more of the conditions of the second invitation as described above, the combination does not specifically teach that the identifying the match comprises: identifying a first condition specifying a maximum value of the requested entity in the first invitation; and identifying a second condition specifying a minimum value of the offered entity in the second invitation.
Okumura, however, teaches identifying match that comprises identifying a first condition specifying a maximum value of the requested entity in the first invitation; and identifying a second condition specifying a minimum value of the offered entity in the second invitation (see ¶0008; minimum price for the commodity set by the seller and maximum price for the commodity set by the seller; ¶0009, match in terms of commodity and price conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claimed invention to include the trading technique as taught by Okumura to the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda as the combination improves the usability of the trading by allowing the buyer-seller mediate services with proper benefits to both the buyer and seller (see Okumura: ¶0007).
As per claim 6, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura further teaches wherein identifying a match between one or more of the conditions of the first invitation and one or more of the conditions of the second invitation further comprises: determining that the maximum value is greater than the minimum value (see Okumura: ¶0010, the determined selling price is equal to or lower than the determined buying price; ¶0012, potential seller and a potential buyer who present ranges of acceptable prices which completely match or overlap each other … buying price is higher than the selling price).
As per claim 7, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura further teaches wherein the first quantity of the first entry is determined based on one or both of the maximum value and the minimum value (see Okumura: ¶0011-¶0012, determined buying price; ¶0096, allowable selling price SPmin; ¶0098, highest allowable buying price BPmax; ¶0110 searches … transaction conditions matching the sale offers; ¶0115-¶0122, buying and selling price determination; ¶0129, determined selling price).
As per claim 9, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura further teaches wherein the determination is based on the mean of the maximum value and the minimum value (see Okumura: ¶0116: Pi=(SPmin + BPmin).div.2). Furthermore, the description of how the determination is made does not affect the positively recited steps.
As per claim 10, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura does not specifically teach wherein the first quantity is determined based on the maximum value and not the minimum value and the second quantity is determined based on the minimum value and not the maximum value. However, as the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura discloses determination of quantity based on maximum value and minimum value as described above, the determination as recited in the claim(s) are mere design of choice as there are finite numbers of solutions in determining based on maximum value and/or minimum value. Furthermore, the description of how the determination is made does not affect the positively recited steps.
As per claim 11, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura further teaches wherein identifying a match between one or more of the conditions of the first invitation and one or more of the conditions of the second invitation further comprises: determining that a maximum value is less than but within a first threshold of the minimum value; notifying the second user of the first invitation; receiving a confirmation of acceptance of the first condition from the second user; and identifying the match (see Okumura: ¶0012, complete match or overlap each other … matching ranges of acceptable prices or within an overlapping portion of the acceptable price ranges; ¶0098, offer accepting function; ¶0107-¶0108, buyer and selling price determining and notifying function; ¶0123-¶0125, purchase condition notifying function; ¶0140-¶0141).
As per claim 12, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura further teaches wherein identifying a match between one or more of the conditions of the first invitation and one or more of the conditions of the second invitation further comprises: determining that a minimum value is greater than but within a second threshold of the maximum value; notifying the first user of the second invitation; receiving a confirmation of acceptance of the second condition from the first user; and identifying the match. (see Okumura: ¶0012, complete match or overlap each other … matching ranges of acceptable prices or within an overlapping portion of the acceptable price ranges; ¶0098, offer accepting function; ¶0107-0108, buyer and selling price determining and notifying function; ¶0123-0125, purchase condition notifying function; ¶0140-0141).
As per claim 18, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura further teaches wherein the one or more conditions comprise one or more of the following: a) one or more range limits on one or more prices related to the exchange; b) an exchange rate; c) a deadline for fulfilment of the first invitation; and/or d) a limitation on the geographical area for the exchange to take place (see Okumura: ¶0012, acceptable ranges)(Woda; col. 3 lines 34-43, contract terms ).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Letourneau”, “Ghanbari”, “Woda”, and “Okumura” as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Admitted Prior Art (“APA”).
As per claim 8, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura does not specifically teach wherein the second quantity of the second entry is determined based on one or both of the maximum value and the minimum value.
APA however discloses determining quantities to purchased are often based on one or both of the maximum value of the purchaser is willing to pay for and minimum value that the seller is willing to sell for.
Hence, as the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda, and Okumura is generally directed to exchange/trade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any known trade techniques, including determining the quantities of purchase, as trading technique in the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, Woda and Okumura.
Furthermore, the description of how the second quantity of the second entry is determined does not affect the positively recited steps.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Letourneau”, “Ghanbari”, and “Woda” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 2017/0187535 (“Middleton”).
As per claim 15, the combination of Letourneau, Ghanbari, and Woda does not specifically teach wherein one or more of the first exchange transaction and the second exchange transaction is a pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) transaction.
Middleton, however, teaches utilizing transaction that is P2SH transaction (see ¶0299, pay-to-script-hash; ¶0323, transaction uses P2SH).
Hence, as Letourneau teaches broadcasting of transaction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claimed invention to utilize any known type of transaction, i.e. P2SH as taught by Middleton, as transaction broadcasted in Letourneau (In re Wolfe, 116 USPQ 443, 444 (CCPA 1961); Ex parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Response to the Argument(s)
112(a) and 112(b)
The claim(s) remain rejected as the there is no support in the Specification of the condition as recited in the claim that triggers the “revoking” or not triggers the “causing ..” The claim amendment also necessitates 112(b) rejection on claim 21.
101
The applicant asserts the newly added limitation of “if the deadline does not expire, ‘causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger” goes beyond an abstract idea and require a direct modification of a peer-to-peer distributed ledger that, as would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, cannot be performed by the human mind and is not abstract idea and that the amendment renders the description more than merely "non-functional descriptive material" as previously alleged by the Examiner.
In response, the concept of requiring deadline condition on a transaction and recording (finalizing) of the transaction on a ledger is an abstract idea as described in the 101 section above as the concept falls within certain method of organizing human activity. The additional element of “peer-to-peer distributed ledger” amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea as described above in the Step 2A (prong 1), and/or merely uses a computer (i.e., server or processor) as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In reference to the applicant’s assertion that the amendment renders the description more than merely non-functional descriptive material, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim continues to recite description of stored data which represents non-functional descriptive material.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation of “causing the first exchange transaction to be written …” does not move to distinguish the positive step(s) in claim 1 nor the positively recited structural component(s) and their function(s) in claim 21 as the expression merely recite intended result of the step of broadcasting or the function performed by the processing apparatus.
103
The applicant asserts that the “causing the first exchange transaction to be written on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger” moves the claimed expression in question, i.e., description of the first exchange transaction, i.e., what the first exchange transaction comprises, out of realms of “non-functional descriptive material”. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the expression continues to describe the extent of stored data. Furthermore, the claimed expression is only contingent limitation as well as intended result.
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5873071 discloses an intermediated exchange of financial commodities between a plurality of participants leading to an exchange that meets the objective of the participants by employing heuristic rules;
US 20030009417 discloses system and method for negotiating a purchase price for goods and/or services allowing performing of volume-dependent negotiations;
US 20040111358 discloses determining of clearing prices and quantities by available intersection of limit orders;
US 20150026031 discloses exchange of currencies such as cash, legal tender, notes, coins, precious metals, Bitcoins, or other virtual currencies. The publication further discloses matching exchange offers based on parameters associated with a particular account.
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 STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights