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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on March 31, 2026.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 were previously cancelled.
Claims 10-15 and 18 were non-elected.
Claim 21 was added.
Claims 1, 10, 18, and 20 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention addresses a problem arising in networked, cross-platform virtual environments. Applicant further argued that the claimed invention’s problem/solution pairing is analogous in structure to DDR Holdings. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s problem/solution pairing is not analogous in structure to DDR Holdings because Applicant’s problem/solution pairing does not represent a claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Executing an exchange between two parties that involves more than one currency is not a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. This is a problem that has existed long before the advent of computers or computer networks. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention is not analogous to Ultramercial. Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s 101 rejection of Applicant’s claimed invention does not rely on a finding that it is analogous to Ultramercial, which makes the issue of Ultramercial’s applicability moot. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 19-21 under 35 USC 103 in light of Applicant’s arguments and amendments of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 19-21 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[An adaptation engine for normalization of electronic message content across different virtual platforms comprising:]
[a network interface for communication over a network;]
[a processor configured to:]
receive a request from a virtual platform for electronic content generated on the platform to a client device;
the content representing a good or service;
receive capabilities of the platform for handling an electronic transaction representing a sale of the content; the capabilities including a currency constraint to a first set of currencies associated with the virtual platform;
receive account information for a unified user account operating the client device within an authenticated session between the client device and the platform; the unified user account based on matching account metadata for at least one additional virtual platform having matching users with the virtual platform; the account metadata including deterministic data and probabilistic data;
wherein the deterministic data includes declarative data stored in first metadata records of a first user account of the virtual platform and matching declarative data stored in second metadata records of a second user account of the at least one additional virtual platform; the declarative data including at least one of loginID and an email address;
wherein the probabilistic data includes inferential data stored in first metadata records of the first user account and matching declarative data stored in second metadata records of the second user account; the inferential data including at least one of a media access control (MAC) address of the client device; self-identified interests; and avatar navigation patterns;
wherein the unified user account is configured to manage transactions across the virtual platform and the at least one additional virtual platform based on the account metadata;
receive exchange rates based on; a first set of currencies unassociated with the unified user account; and a second set of currencies associated with the unified account;
the first set of currencies being associated with the virtual platform and the second set of currencies being respective to the account metadata for the at least one additional virtual platform; and,
determine, within the authenticated session, an amount, corresponding to the content, of at least one of the second set of currencies to transfer from the unified user account based on an exchange rate with one of the first set of currencies, the amount being formatted in the at least one of the second set of currencies that is associated with the at least one additional virtual platform; and,
control, within the authenticated session, the platform directly by sending instructions to the platform based on
the capabilities of the platform;
the instructions to: i) configure the platform to generate the content for the client device using the amount that includes a currency substitution of the at least one of the second set of currencies for the first set of currencies; and
ii) generate the content using the currency substitution on the platform for delivery to the client device
wherein the instructions cause the platform, within the authenticated session, to generate and deliver the content using the currency substitution in place of a currency of the first set of currencies despite the currency constraint to the first set of currencies.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The adaptation engine, network interface, and processor in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of an adaptation engine, a network interface, and a processor. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 19-21 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 19-21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 19-21 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 19-21 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner’s Statement of Patentability over Prior Art of Record
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Ranjan (US 2024/0185190), Golvin (EP 0949596 A2), Reuss (US 2019/0036864 A1), Mahaffey (US 2017/0339178 A1), and Egenolf (US 2015/0039485 A1) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Ranjan teaches systems, processes, and methods for the conversion of an individual’s conventional bank held assets to a digital asset. Golvin teaches a method and system to perform electronic value exchange and settlement among heterogeneous payment schemes with heterogeneous currencies. Reuss teaches generating automated messages within messaging threads. Mahaffey teaches response generation after distributed monitoring and evaluation of multiple devices. Egenolf teaches an apparatus and method for processing of transactions that originate in differing currencies. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious matching account metadata for at least one additional virtual platform having matching users with the virtual platform; the account metadata including deterministic data and probabilistic data; wherein the deterministic data includes declarative data stored in first metadata records of a first user account of the virtual platform and matching declarative data stored in second metadata records of a second user account of the at least one additional virtual platform; the declarative data including at least one of loginID and an email address; wherein the probabilistic data includes inferential data stored in first metadata records of the first user account and matching declarative data stored in second metadata records of the second user account; the inferential data including at least one of a media access control (MAC) address of the client device; self-identified interests; and avatar navigation patterns; wherein the unified user account is configured to manage transactions across the virtual platform and the at least one additional virtual platform based on the account metadata, as described by the allowed claims. For these reasons, claims 1-6, 9, and 19-21 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Bimolaksono (US 2024/0257111) discloses various embodiments for converting cryptocurrency to central bank digital currency for transactions.
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 of 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 extension fee 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 JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
June 6, 2026
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights