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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 February 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of financial ownership and that the claims are integrated into a practical application with the use of a specialized computing device. Initially, the Examiner cannot find support for the term or structure of a “transaction disassociation computer” or that a similar device such as server 300 in Fig 1 is a specialized computing device as numerous examples in the specification ([0148]-[0149], [0213]) describe a general purpose processor as being capable of implementing the invention. Applicant argues the claims do not recite creation, valuation, or financial settlement of any currency and instead define a system for real-time settlement of a sale of IPICU. As Applicant states, the claims recite a settlement system for the sale of currency (IPICU) and is in effect claiming a new banking system with the new currency claimed by the Applicant. Therefore, the claims do recite the concept of creating a currency and performing transaction with the currency. The technical aspects recited on page 14 are aspects of recordkeeping (replicate the transaction record) which is done with banking and transaction systems and verification of asset control is performed before any bank transfer or transaction so that an account owner’s funds are verified to be debited from the owner account and not another customer. Applicant argues the claims are similar to Enfish, but the Examiner disagrees because the claims are not directed to improve computer operation and the computer operations are merely being used as a tool to implement the banking system claimed by the Applicant. Applicant argues on page 15 that the transaction disassociation computer is not a generic processor. The Examiner cannot find support for the term or structure of a “transaction disassociation computer” or that a similar device such as server 300 in Fig 1 is a specialized computing device as numerous examples in the specification ([0148]-[0149], [0213]) describe a general purpose processor as being capable of implementing the invention. Applicant argues on pages 15-16 that the claims improve the functioning of the computing and is similar to McRo. The Examiner does not find the facts or issues of McRo applicable to the current claims because the specific animation improvements over a previously exclusively manual process are not similar to transaction verification and account recordkeeping of the current claims. Additionally, the claims contain the language “wherein the transaction disassociation computer is further configured to enforce atomic, one-to-one, and replicated consistency” but the specification is entirely silent on any of the recited functions and cannot be considered to provide an improvement to computer functionality. Applicant argues on pages 16-17 that the preemption and overbreadth concerns are confined to a specific computing implementation that enforces atomic disassociation and replicated consistency between two defined data structures. The concerns of preemption are addressed through the 101 analysis and won’t be separately considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-23, filed 9 February 2026, with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of 17 September 2025 has been withdrawn. Examiner notes that the references do not teach or disclose at least a transaction disassociation computer which maintains atomic, one-to-one, and replicated consistency between digital ledger entries and custody metadata for indivisible, physically stored currency units. Additionally, the claim amendments have introduced new matter that does not have support in the specification and the 112(a) rejections are presented below.
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 13-15 and 21-29 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, claim 13 is directed to a “system for real-time settlement of a sale of indivisible physical identifiable currency units with a banking account of a financial institution”.
Claim 13 is directed to the concept of “creating a currency and performing transactions with the currency” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (currency is abstract itself and the fundamental economic idea behind all economic activity) and commercial or legal interactions (performing a transaction is a business activity and sales activity)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites a plurality of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units, wherein each Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Unit of the plurality of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units comprises an identifier, wherein each Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Unit of the plurality of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units is stored in an Indivisible physical identifiable currency unit storage facility and wherein each identifier is unique to each Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Unit, [store] a plurality of unit accounts, receive outgoing payment information for a user unit account of an account owner, the outgoing payment information comprising an outgoing amount of a fiat currency and a credit card account, of a third-party financial institution, owned by the account owner that is to be credited with the outgoing amount of a fiat currency, determining an exchange rate, the exchange rate describing a number of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units having a value equal to the outgoing amount of the fiat currency based on an exchange rate between the fiat currency and Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units, identifying a set of identifiers corresponding to the number of Indivisible Physical
Identifiable Currency Units associated with the user unit account; verifying from the digital ledger that each identifier in the set of identifiers is associated with the user unit account and not associated with any other account; performing a controlled update operation that temporarily restricts modification of a record for the set of identifiers during processing; generating a transaction record in the digital ledger, wherein the transaction record simultaneously disassociates the identifiers of the number of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units from the user unit account and associates the identifiers of number of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units with the system unit account so that each identifier of the number of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units is only associated with a single unit account at any given point in time, wherein the number of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units is equal to the exchange rate, from the user unit account to a system unit account, and wherein each Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Unit of the number of Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units remains stored in the Indivisible physical identifiable currency unit storage facility, debiting the outgoing amount of the fiat currency from a system fiat settlement account and crediting the outgoing amount of the fiat currency to the third-party financial institution. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as transaction disassociation computer, a digital ledger stored in one or more computer-readable data stores, one or more processors and one or more computer-readable memories represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Additionally, replicating the transaction record across the one or more data stores is similar to electronic recordkeeping which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of creating a currency and performing transactions with the currency.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Additionally, replicating the transaction record across the one or more data stores is similar to electronic recordkeeping which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of creating a currency and performing transactions with the currency using computer technology (e.g. one or more processors, a transaction disassociation computer). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 14-15 and 21-29 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
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 13-15 and 21-29 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.
Claim 13 recites “a transaction disassociation computer”, “verifying from the digital ledger that each identifier in the set of identifiers is associated with the user unit account and not associated with any other account,” “performing a controlled update operation that temporarily restricts modification of a record for the set of identifiers during processing,” and “replicating the transaction record across the one or more data stores in accordance with redundancy and data-replication mechanisms of the system to enforce atomic, one-to-one, and replicated consistency between the digital ledger and the physical storage of the Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units in the Indivisible physical identifiable currency unit storage facility, wherein the
transaction disassociation computer is configured to verify, following replication,
that the digital ledger and the custody metadata remain synchronized for each
identifier, and wherein the transaction disassociation computer is further configured to enforce atomic, one-to-one, and replicated consistency between the digital ledger entries and custody metadata identifying physical storage of the indivisible physical identifiable currency units, such that each unit remains indivisible and associated with a single account record and a single storage-facility record at any given point in time.”
The specification does not teach or disclose a transaction disassociation computer and the term does not appear in the specification as well as not being a term of art. The Examiner has interpreted this to be “a computer” for examination purposes.
The specification does not teach or disclose a verifying that each identifier in the set of identifiers is associated with the user unit. At best, the specification discloses verifying the identity of a customer and verifying that the customer has sufficient funds to perform the transaction, but verifying identifiers does not appear in the specification.
The specification does not teach or disclose a performing a controlled update that temporarily restricts modification. The specification is entirely silent on this claim limitation and the Applicant does not have support for a written description of this claim limitation and the new matter.
The specification does not teach or disclose a performing a controlled update that temporarily restricts modification. The specification is entirely silent on this claim limitation and the Applicant does not have support for a written description of this claim limitation and the new matter. The specification does not teach or disclose wherein the transaction disassociation computer is configured to verify, following replication, that the digital ledger and the custody metadata remain synchronized for each identifier. The specification is entirely silent on this claim limitation or how the computer verifies synchronization and the Applicant does not have support for a written description of this claim limitation and the new matter. Notably, metadata is not present in the specification.
The specification does not teach or disclose wherein the transaction disassociation computer is further configured to enforce atomic, one-to-one, and replicated consistency between the digital ledger entries and custody metadata identifying physical storage of the indivisible physical identifiable currency units. The specification is entirely silent on this claim limitation or how the computer verifies synchronization and the Applicant does not have support for a written description of this claim limitation and the new matter. Notably, custody metadata atomic, one-to-one, replication, and consistency are not present in the specification.
The specification does not teach or disclose replicating the transaction record across the one or more data stores in accordance with redundancy and data-replication mechanisms of the system to enforce atomic, one-to-one, and replicated consistency between the digital ledger and the physical storage of the Indivisible Physical Identifiable Currency Units in the Indivisible physical identifiable currency unit storage facility. The specification is entirely silent on this claim limitation or how the computer replicates the transaction record or enforces atomic, one-to-one, and replicated consistency and the Applicant does not have support for a written description of this claim limitation and the new matter. Notably, atomic, one-to-one, replication, and consistency are not present in the specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Robertson US 2020/0294011 Dalton US 2023/0177507 Chen US 2017/0169405 Pierce US 2021/0035092 Nonni US 2024/0202815
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692