DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are amended.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that “claim 1 is eligible at least because it does not recite a judicial exception.” “claim 1 is necessarily rooted in computer technology and requires a specific machine implementation” therefore, they are not “recite a method for organizing human activity” Specifically, communicating using a "wallet connect protocol" and/or "using a specific standardized message format" or generating "a transaction payload by obtaining payment credentials for the financial NFT using a smart contract on a blockchain distributed ledger" are not a human activity because a human cannot perform these tasks.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) processing transaction. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, at a ... from ... a first party using a wallet connect protocol, a cryptocurrency transaction amount for a transaction between the first party and a second party, a public address of the second party, and a financial card... of the first party to be used for payment of the transaction; identifying the financial NFT as representing a tokenized payment card of an issuer; obtaining an estimated exchange amount in fiat currency required for the cryptocurrency transaction amount, wherein the estimated exchange amount comprises an estimated gas fee; communicating, by the ... to the issuer, using a specific standardized message format, a pre-authorization request for a pre-authorization of the estimated exchange amount; receiving, at the... from the issuer, a pre-authorization response message that includes the preauthorization for the estimated exchange amount; generating, at the ..., a transaction payload by obtaining payment credentials for the financial NFT using a ... on a ... ledger; communicating, at the ... to the ... using the wallet connect protocol, the transaction payload; receiving, at the ..., a transaction hash indicating the transaction payload is signed; in response to receiving the transaction hash, obtaining, at the ... from a ..., confirmation of a fiat currency to cryptocurrency exchange of the estimated exchange amount; communicating, at the ... to the issuer, a capture request of the pre-authorization for the estimated exchange amount; receiving, at the ... from the issuer, a capture response message that the fiat currency of the estimated exchange amount is captured; and providing, at the ... to the second party, a confirmation message including a that the transaction between the first party and the second party is complete and a payment transaction hash for a transfer of the cryptocurrency transaction amount for the transaction to the public address of the second party.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for processing transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of service provider system, crypto exchange server, web3 wallet, NFT, smart contract, blockchain distributed ledger, processing system and storage media merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing transaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Computer and technologies such as web3 protocol, smart contract and distributed ledger are used to automate the transaction process.
The applicant further argues that “the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under Step 2A because the claims recite an improvement in the technical field of web3/metaverse e-commerce.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional element of the claim(s) such as the use of service provider system, crypto exchange server, web3 wallet, NFT, smart contract, blockchain distributed ledger, processing system and storage media merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of organizing assets allocation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Specification PGPub ¶¶0052-53 discloses utilizing technologies to process financial transactions. This is to apply technology in performing the abstract ides. It facilitates financial transaction (business process). However, it does not improve functioning of a computer nor any other technology or technical field i.e. distributed ledger, blockchain, or web3. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant' s argument of “The claims recite elements other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional”, examiner notes based MPEP 2106 Step 2B “well-understood, routine and conventional” only be considered when examiner had previously concluded under revised step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity. However, this is not the case in the rejection. Therefore, arguments is moot.
The rejection is maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-13 are directed to an apparatus and claims 14-20 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) processing transaction. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, at a ... from ... a first party using a wallet connect protocol, a cryptocurrency transaction amount for a transaction between the first party and a second party, a public address of the second party, and a financial card... of the first party to be used for payment of the transaction; identifying the financial NFT as representing a tokenized payment card of an issuer; obtaining an estimated exchange amount in fiat currency required for the cryptocurrency transaction amount, wherein the estimated exchange amount comprises an estimated gas fee; communicating, by the ... to the issuer, using a specific standardized message format, a pre-authorization request for a pre-authorization of the estimated exchange amount; receiving, at the... from the issuer, a pre-authorization response message that includes the preauthorization for the estimated exchange amount; generating, at the ..., a transaction payload by obtaining payment credentials for the financial NFT using a ... on a ... ledger; communicating, at the ... to the ... using the wallet connect protocol, the transaction payload; receiving, at the ..., a transaction hash indicating the transaction payload is signed; in response to receiving the transaction hash, obtaining, at the ... from a ..., confirmation of a fiat currency to cryptocurrency exchange of the estimated exchange amount; communicating, at the ... to the issuer, a capture request of the pre-authorization for the estimated exchange amount; receiving, at the ... from the issuer, a capture response message that the fiat currency of the estimated exchange amount is captured; and providing, at the ... to the second party, a confirmation message including a that the transaction between the first party and the second party is complete and a payment transaction hash for a transfer of the cryptocurrency transaction amount for the transaction to the public address of the second party.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for processing transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of service provider system, crypto exchange server, web3 wallet, NFT, smart contract, blockchain distributed ledger, processing system and storage media merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing transaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using service provider system, crypto exchange server, web3 wallet, NFT, smart contract, blockchain distributed ledger, processing system and storage media to perform transaction processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 15 describe estimating exchange amount from cryptocurrency to fiat. Dependent claims 3, 10 and 16 describe estimating exchange from fiat to cryptocurrency. Dependent claims 4, 11 and 17 describe obtaining payment credentials for the financial NFT. Dependent claims 5-6, 12-13 and 18-19 describe transaction parties. Dependent claims 7 and 20 describe estimating exchange amount. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of service provider system, crypto exchange server, web3 wallet, NFT, smart contract, blockchain distributed ledger, processing system and storage media merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of processing transaction request. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of service provider system, crypto exchange server, web3 wallet, NFT, smart contract, blockchain distributed ledger, processing system and storage media as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of record is US20170300879A1 (“Subramanian et al.”) teaches credit card transaction between first party and a second party via a payment processing server (¶0037), the payment processing server interacting with issuer to obtain authorization (¶¶0038-39). US20240161090A1 (“Fang”) discloses cryptocurrency transaction (Feng, abs), pre-authorization (Feng, abs), obtaining an estimated exchange amount in fiat currency required for the cryptocurrency transaction amount, wherein the estimated exchange amount comprises an estimated gas fee; (Fang, ¶0073, ¶0128), receiving a transaction hash indicating the transaction payload is signed; (Fang, ¶0015). US20230385815A1 (“Jakobsson et al.”) discloses web3 wallet (¶0642) and a financial card non-fungible token (NFT) (¶0182). However, the prior arts do not explicitly disclose: generate a transaction payload by obtaining payment credentials for the financial NFT; communicate, to the web3 wallet, the transaction payload; in response to receiving the transaction hash, obtain confirmation of a fiat currency to cryptocurrency exchange of the estimated exchange amount, the confirmation comprising an actual exchange amount, the actual exchange amount comprising the actual gas fee; communicate, to the issuer, a capture request of the pre-authorization for the actual exchange amount; receive, from the issuer, a capture response message that the fiat currency of the actual exchange amount is captured; and provide, to the second party, a confirmation message including a payment transaction hash for a transfer of the cryptocurrency transaction amount for the transaction to the public address of the second party.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US12169868B2 (“Navarro et al.”) discloses a method that receiving, via a host platform, a payment authorization request message for a payment transaction of a digital wallet hosted by the host platform from a payment gateway of an electronic payment network, verifying that a payment account in the digital wallet has sufficient funds to satisfy an amount of the payment transaction and transmitting a payment authorization response to the payment gateway, pausing clearing and settling of the authorized payment transaction, executing a blockchain transaction via a blockchain ledger of a cryptocurrency network to exchange fiat currency from the payment account for cryptocurrency based on the amount of the payment transaction, prior to a due date of the authorized payment transaction, executing a second blockchain transaction to exchange the cryptocurrency for a new amount of fiat currency, and settling the authorized payment transaction based on the new amount of fiat currency received from the second blockchain transaction..
US20230144486A1 (“Bono”) discloses an improved cryptocurrency transaction process. The cryptocurrency transaction process involves the use of a payment card to verify a cryptocurrency transaction. The payment card interacts with a point of sale terminal having a processor. The processor communicates with a database that carries out most of the remaining steps of the process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697