DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 10/30/25. Claims 1, 4-21 and 24 are cancelled. Claim 28 is new. Claims 2-3, 22-23 and 25-28 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of claims that were amended substantively. Per example, the amended claim 1 recites additional elements (e.g.: “the first party accesses the metaverse representation of the first party using a first virtual-reality headset” and “a second party accesses the metaverse representation of the second party using a second virtual-reality headset”) that necessitates a reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended 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.
Claims 2-3, 22-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 2-3, 22-23 and 25-28). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 28 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity, as a method of provisioning a debit card and completing funds withdrawal with the card, as are all a form of commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
in the metaverse, initiating a sub-screen comprising an interaction between a metaverse representation of a first party and a metaverse representation of a second party, said first party comprising a banked user, and said second party comprising an unbanked user;
the first party accesses the metaverse representation of the first party using a first virtual-reality headset;
a second party accesses the metaverse representation of the second party using a second virtual-reality headset;
at the sub-screen in the metaverse:
in a metaverse interaction between the metaverse representation of the first party and the metaverse representation of the second party, generating a debit card, the debit card comprising an instrument that electronically stores fiat currency, the debit card is configured to interface with the ATM, said ATM comprising a physical ATM present outside of the metaverse;
transmitting the debit card from the metaverse to a digital wallet application run on a smart phone associated with the second party; and
displaying a notification to the metaverse representation of the second party, said notification confirming transmission of the debit card;
at the physical ATM:
using near field communication ("NFC"), receiving a first communication from the digital wallet application run on a smart phone, the first communication comprising an amount of fiat currency stored electronically on the debit card that is to be provided;
providing fiat currency from the physical ATM to the second party in response to receipt of the first communication.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“in the metaverse, initiating a sub-screen comprising […] a metaverse representation of […] and a metaverse representation of […]”, “[…] accesses the metaverse representation of […] using a first virtual-reality headset”, “[…] accesses the metaverse representation of […] using a second virtual-reality headset”, “at the sub-screen in the metaverse”, “in a metaverse interaction between the metaverse representation of […] and the metaverse representation of […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[an instrument] that electronically stores”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“transmitting the debit card from the metaverse to a digital wallet application run on a smart phone”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“displaying a notification to the metaverse representation of […], said notification […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“using near field communication ("NFC"), [receiving …] from the digital wallet application run on a smart phone”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
(Step 2B) 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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of provisioning a debit card and completing funds withdrawal with the card, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 2-3, 22-23 and 25-27 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
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.
Claims 2-3, 22-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170344981 A1 (Jain) in view of US 20240152902 A1 (Rapowitz).
As to claim 28,
Jain teaches,
in the metaverse (para. 38 “virtual goods can be purchased instantly, for example, a video game”),
[virtual reality interaction between parties], generating a debit card (FIG. 3, para. 38 “card provisioned inside his mobile or digital wallet,”), the debit card comprising an instrument that electronically stores fiat currency (para. 38 “cards representing the funds”), the debit card is configured to interface with the ATM, said ATM comprising a physical ATM present outside of the metaverse (FIG. 3, para. 5 “payment cards in a digital wallet format, capable of transacting at NFC or other chip enabled payment terminal”);
transmitting the debit card from the metaverse to a digital wallet application run on a smart phone associated with the second party (para. 38 “virtual card may be issued pertaining to the open loop or closed loop account where funds are held and the account info then wirelessly provisioned inside a digital wallet”, “Once the funds are distributed, they may be accessible outside the OCPS system by the target user”); and displaying a notification to the metaverse representation of the second party, said notification confirming transmission of the debit card (para. 38 “the user can receive the notification of funds available using social media services”);
at the physical ATM:
using near field communication ("NFC") (para. 56 “pre-paid cards provisioned to their digital wallet which are usable as NFC (…) payment”), receiving a first communication from the digital wallet application run on a smart phone, the first communication comprising an amount of fiat currency stored electronically on the debit card that is to be provided (para. 37 “Cash Withdrawal 318 where the funds are made available to the user for withdrawal in cash using a cash dispense mechanism such as ATM”, para. 38);
providing fiat currency from the physical ATM to the second party in response to receipt of the first communication (para. 37 “Cash Withdrawal 318 where the funds are made available to the user for withdrawal in cash using a cash dispense mechanism such as ATM”).
Jain does not teach,
initiating a sub-screen comprising an interaction between a metaverse representation of a first party and a metaverse representation of a second party, said first party comprising a banked user, and said second party comprising an unbanked user;
wherein: the first party accesses the metaverse representation of the first party using a first virtual-reality headset;
a second party accesses the metaverse representation of the second party using a second virtual-reality headset;
at the sub-screen in the metaverse:
in a metaverse interaction between the metaverse representation of the first party and the metaverse representation of the second party [generating a debit card …].
however, Rapowitz teaches,
initiating a sub-screen comprising an interaction between a metaverse representation of a first party and a metaverse representation of a second party, said first party comprising a banked user, and said second party comprising an unbanked user (para. 137 “Chris' avatar is in a virtual reality environment and is located near John's avatar”);
wherein: the first party accesses the metaverse representation of the first party using a first virtual-reality headset (para. 137 “a user, Chris, has a virtual reality headset and is a user of a virtual reality environment… Chris’ avatar”);
a second party accesses the metaverse representation of the second party using a second virtual-reality headset (para. 137 “John is a friend of his and another user in the virtual reality environment. Chris' avatar is in a virtual reality environment and is located near John's avatar”);
at the sub-screen in the metaverse (para. 137):
in a metaverse interaction between the metaverse representation of the first party and the metaverse representation of the second party (para. 137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine card provisioning of Jain with virtual reality based funds transfer of Rapowitz because virtual reality based funds transfer improves card provisioning by expanding provisioned card use in other use case scenarios such as in a virtual reality transaction.
As to claim 2, combination of Jain and Rapowitz teach all limitations of claim 28.
Jain teaches,
wherein an upper limit is placed on how much fiat currency is transferred to the wallet application (para. 49 “available funds”).
As to claim 3, combination of Jain and Rapowitz teach all limitations of claim 28.
Jain teaches,
wherein an upper limit is placed on a total amount of fiat currency transferred from the first party to the second party over a 90 day period of time (para. 29 “redeemable value of the funds to be transferred within a certain time period”).
As to claim 22, combination of Jain and Rapowitz teach all limitations of claim 28.
Jain teaches,
wherein the debit card that is in the digital wallet is stored in a backpack of the second party (para. 29 “the recipient's preferred digital wallet,”).
As to claim 23, combination of Jain and Rapowitz teach all limitations of claim 28.
Jain teaches,
wherein the second party is unbanked because the second party does not qualify for a bank account (para. 52 “The OCPS may also purchase a virtual gift card from a gift card distributor and receive digital credentials for the gift card which it can then provision inside the digital wallet of the user … when the receiver does not yet have the OCPS app installed“).
As to claim 25, combination of Jain and Rapowitz teach all limitations of claim 28.
Jain teaches,
wherein an upper limit is placed on a total amount of fiat currency transferred from the first party to the second party over a 30 day period of time (para. 29 “redeemable value of the funds to be transferred within a certain time period”).
As to claim 26, combination of Jain and Rapowitz teach all limitations of claim 28.
Jain does not teach,
wherein said second party is physically distant from the first party, wherein physically distant comprises the second party being beyond a local environment of the first party making it difficult to physically exchange an object of monetary value.
however, Rapowitz teaches,
wherein said second party is physically distant from the first party, wherein physically distant comprises the second party being beyond a local environment of the first party making it difficult to physically exchange an object of monetary value (para. 3 “Despite the distance, the people may want to exchange money”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine card provisioning of Jain with virtual reality based funds transfer of Rapowitz because virtual reality based funds transfer improves card provisioning by expanding provisioned card use in other use case scenarios such as in a virtual reality transaction.
As to claim 27, combination of Jain and Rapowitz teach all limitations of claim 28.
Jain teaches,
wherein the ATM is a conventional ATM (para. 37 “a cash dispense mechanism such as ATM”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights