DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 1/15/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Response to Argument/Amendment
101 Rejection
Applicant contends that the claims are not directed an abstract idea (i.e., fundamental economic practice), the claims define technical features for isolating token transactions and preventing double-spending in distributed networks. The time-to-live improves the security of the token transfer. The use of disjoint token subspace reduces the ability to double spend. Applicant also argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by imposing technical solutions for secure, distributed value transfers without reliance on a central authority.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended claims still amount to a transfer of assets between sender and the receiver. The claimed scope still captures an abstract idea and further fails to include additional elements to transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims provide a level of detail that amounts to simply transferring assets between users and with the use of basic description of the parameters what the tokens entail. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer function such as generating a base token, signing the base token; and transmitting a transfer request comprising the minted token. Here, the claims amount to mere settlement of a transaction/transfer using a token; the disjoint subspace and the token attributes (time-to-live value and amount) are nothing more than a conventional token characteristic. The claims fail to capture any security improvements or technical improvement to a specific field. See below for the new rejection.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s argument is moot in light of a new art and new grounds of rejection due to 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are drawn to a method and claim 15 is drawn to a system claim which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 (claims 15 similar in scope):
generating, by sender device or a sender computer associated with a sender, a base token in a token space associated with parameters defining a disjoint token subspace for the sender and a receiver, wherein the base token comprises token attributes including a time-to-live parameter, and amount of token-related digital currency;
signing, by the sender device or the sender computer, the base token using a private key to form a minted token, wherein the signing enables verification of the minted token’s authenticity; and
transmitting, by the sender device to a receiver device, a transfer request comprising the minted token.
Claim 16:
receiving, by a receiver device associated with a receiver from a sender device associated with a sender, a transfer request comprising a minted token in a token space associated with parameters defining a disjoint token subspace for the sender and a receiver, wherein the minted token comprises token attributes including a time-to-live parameter and an amount of token-related digital currency;
verifying, by the receiver device, the minted token by checking that token attributes of the minted token are within the parameters of the disjoint token subspace;
modifying, by the receiver device, a status of the minted token to form a modified token; and
signing, by the receiver device, the modified token to form a cleared token.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing, 1) commercial or legal interactions by following rules or instructions; 2) fundamental economic principles or practices, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea in claim 1 and 15, recited above, each includes: generating, by sender device or a sender computer associated with a sender, a base token in a token space associated with parameters defining a disjoint token subspace for the sender and a receiver; signing the base token using a private key to form a minted token; transmitting a transfer request comprising the minted token. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of managing relationships by following rules, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 1) commercial or legal interactions by following rules or instructions; 2) fundamental economic principles or practices, grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly for claim 16, the abstract idea recites: receiving a transfer request comprising a minted token in a token space associated with parameters defining a disjoint token subspace for the sender and receiver; verifying the minted token by checking that token attributes of the minted token are within the parameters of the disjoint token subspace.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (sender device; sender computer; receiver device in claim 1 and 16; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium in claim 15) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-14 and 17-20 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of the respective claim 1 and 16 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 the sender computer signing the base token; claim 3 the receiver device modifies a status of the minted token; claim 4 receiving, by the sender device from the receiver device, a cleared token; claim 5 the sender computer is authorized to mint and clear tokens; claim 6 receiving a clearing signature; claim 7 receiving a token template; claim 8 the receiving device performs an integrity check; claim 10 transmitting, by the sender computer to an auditing computer, the minted token; claim 12 debiting the amount from a source ledger; etc, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in respective claim 1 and 16.
Claims 9, 11, 13, and 14 are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material of “the token space is an n-dimensional space of n-parameters” in claim 9; claim 11 the sender and receiver devices are online”; claim 13 the receiver and sender devices are mobile phones; claim 14 the receiver and sender devices operate offline. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention.
The other dependent claims (claims 17-20), which are similar in scope to the dependent claims mentioned above, are rejected for the same reason as above.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230214792A1) in view of Xu (US20220414120A1), and further in view of Moore (US20100235882A1).
With respect to claim 1 and 15
Lee teaches the limitation:
a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by the processor to perform operations including (see [0002]):
generating, by sender device or a sender computer associated with a sender, a base token in a token space associated ([0035], The transaction has one or more token-related outputs, each of which represents a respective token issued by a Token Issuer and specifies a quantity of a) token units and b) token-related cryptocurrency associated with the respective token. The transaction can also have at least one Issuer-related output comprising issuance data associated with the Token Issuer. The token value can correspond to a function of the cryptocurrency value e.g. satoshi value held in the token. During the creation of a token the authenticity can be established through a set of transactions, including at least one of: an inaugural transaction, which can be root node holding digital identities and/or digital signatures of the issuer and/or authority responsible for the tokens, which can also include additional signatures from, for example, a governmental or regulatory authority; see also [0491], A token transaction created on a writechain can establish a set of parameters that can be referenced within the database. The parameters can be, for example, a table or any other database feature. The transaction ID can be the hash of the parent transaction from which it was derived.);
signing, by the sender device or the sender computer, the base token to form a minted token using a private key ([0253], As shown in FIG. 9 b the process of creating and minting a token has a root node that functions as the inaugural transaction and includes one or more digital signatures of the authority/issuer and to represent the authority. The root node transaction is recorded in the cryptocurrency ledger i.e. ‘on-chain’. The root node can include a definition of the tokens to be minted, or the definition transaction can be made separately on-chain and digitally referenced to the root node, while also being recorded on-chain; see also [0686], The device 100 can also include an embedded system 122 and contain a secure module 124 having an associated private key. A key store 126 can hold the key-pairs assigned to the control signals of the system. A device can include a secure mechanism 128 for generating key-pairs for use in signing the UTXO of a token, and the secure mechanism can include a physical unclonable function (PUF).); wherein the signing enables verification of the minted token’s authenticity ([0035], During the creation of a token the authenticity can be established through a set of transactions, including at least one of: an inaugural transaction, which can be root node holding digital identities and/or digital signatures of the issuer and/or authority responsible for the tokens, which can also include additional signatures from, for example, a governmental or regulatory authority; a token definition transaction, that defines the tokens to be created, and their format, which can be a minting transaction, database establishment transaction or a device set-up record in a control system, said token definition transaction preferably referencing the inaugural transaction, and preferably defining an ‘establishment transaction’; and a token issuance transaction, wherein a token is transferred to a user, which preferably references the token definition transaction e.g. establishment transaction and/or the inaugural transaction.)
transmitting, by the sender device to a receiver device, a transfer request comprising the minted token for use within the disjoint token subspace ([0382], 1. Alice prepares and sends her dynamic token UTXO details and a return script detailing the bitcoin script to use as the output for Alice's dynamic token to Bobmart, which can be via an email that Bobmart can access.
2. BobMart has a receiver wallet to provide the loyalty point service and uses a token validation service to verify Alice's token details. Token wallet validation can be performed by BobMart or a third-party support service, and functions to confirm Alice's token is the correct type of token e.g., a Bobmart loyalty token.)
The portion of the limitation which recites “for use within the disjoint token subspace” is merely a recited intended use. This portion gives NO patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for … [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Xu teaches:
([0063], Further, tokens can be split by rights, the right set in a token may be split into two disjoint subsets, thus a token is divided into two; see also [0009], The transactions contain tokens, and a token contains a value and a right set, the right set is a set of rights, and a right is an index or a handle referencing a node in the right forest.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee with the teaching of Xu as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Lee of creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets to include a system of managing token’s rights or space as taught in Xu for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Lee in view of Xu don’t explicitly disclose, but Moore teaches:
….Wherein the base token comprises token attributes including a time-to-live parameter, ([0058], Each token used in the token management system 300 includes a token identification field 502, an expiration date field 504, a token value field 506, a token type field 508, a token group field 510, a payer identification field 512, and a payee identification field 514.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu with the teaching of Moore as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Xu, for example creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a system of defining token attributes as taught in Moore for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
With respect to claim 2
The combination Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lee further teaches: wherein the sender computer signs the base token and transmits the minted token to the sender device ([0267], Once minted, these tokens can be provided to users. A token can be established for onward transfer, which we may refer to as putting the tokens into “circulation”, because they can be shared and exchanged between parties who have wallets that are configured or arranged to operate in accordance with the present disclosure. Alternatively, a token can be established to be held by a user, and rather than the token being transferred between parties the token is held in a wallet and it is token units associated with a token that are exchanged between parties.)
With respect to claim 3
The combination Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lee further teaches: wherein the sender device signs the base token ([0380], FIG. 29 illustrates an example of a transaction process between Alice (shopper) and BobMart (retail outlet), wherein transactions are signed by both parties and both parties must validate that the counterparty tokens being presented are correctly minted dynamic tokens.),
Moore furhter teaches:
and wherein the receiver device modifies a status of the minted token in the token space to generate a cleared token after receiving the minted token ([0115], The token redeemer 2706 receives the transferred token and elects to redeem the token value using a process illustrated in either FIG. 14 or 19 which results in a transfer of the token value in the amount of $5.00 from the network account of the token creator 2702 to the network account of the token redeemer 2706.)
With respect to claim 4
The combination Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 2. Lee further teaches: wherein the token space is a local token space stored on the receiver device ([0142], Each instance of token creation can be accompanied by at least one of a minting transaction, database establishment transaction and device set-up record. A token is created on the output of a transaction. Additionally or alternatively, an instance of token creation can be determined from an edge connection with an issuance transaction. The initial transaction in a writechain can be a minting transaction defining a root transaction. A token's provenance can be determined by tracing the series of transactions it has made in the writechain back to the minting transaction and/or a database establishment transaction.), and wherein the method further comprising:
receiving, by the sender device from the receiver device, a cleared token ([0004], Any portion of the cryptocurrency that is not transferred to a new receiving address/owner/receiver is sent back to the current address/owner/sender as “change”.);
transmitting, by the sender device to the sender computer, the cleared token ([0458], Coins can be repaired but this requires the direct involvement of the issuer. To repair them, the user who invalidated them must be able to pass the satoshis they contained back to the issuer, or the issuer must get untokenized bitcoin, re-create the tokens and give them back to the user in a re-minting or refresh transaction.)
With respect to claim 5
The combination Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lee further teaches: wherein the sender computer is authorized to mint and clear tokens in the token space by a central authority computer ([0037], An issuer may create sub-ledgers under which multiple sub-issuers are authorized to issue tokens that carry the same denominated token value, and these tokens can be used in transactions together, as long as there is a common parent issuer. A sub-issuer can be authorized to refresh a token by repeating the set of transactions, such that a recipient only needs to verify a linear transaction history of a token back to the most recent set of transactions.)
With respect to claim 7
The combination Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lee further teaches: receiving, by the sender device from the receiver device, a token template comprising at least some of the token attributes ([0151], The minting transaction and/or said database establishment record can include a form including (i) a template component, and (ii) a data-entry component, wherein data-entry is implemented in one or more transaction outputs of a form token.)
With respect to claim 8
The combination Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lee further teaches: wherein after the receiver device receives the minted token, the receiver device performs an integrity check, or an authenticity check on the minted token ([0065], A recipient of a token unit can verify the authenticity of a token unit by performing a validation check e.g. a Merkle proof with one or more of the set of transactions.)
With respect to claim 10
The combination Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lee further teaches: wherein the base token is signed by the sender computer ([0035], During the creation of a token the authenticity can be established through a set of transactions, including at least one of: an inaugural transaction, which can be root node holding digital identities and/or digital signatures of the issuer and/or authority responsible for the tokens,), and
wherein the method further comprises, after signing, by the sender computer, the base token to form the minted token:
transmitting, by the sender computer to an auditing computer, the minted token ([0436], an entity creates tokens providing access to gold, and in this example 1000 kg of gold is initially held by a single dynamic token. The process begins by establishing a root node including the digital identity of the entity who will issue, and/or the signature of the authority approving the tokens and the distribution of tokens, which can include, for example, the digital signatures of a bank holding the gold in their vault and a governmental authority approving the tokenization of the gold, such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the United Kingdom.), wherein the minted token comprises auditing information including one or more of a sender identifier, a receiver identifier, a source ledger address, a destination ledger address, a time stamp, or a clearer identifier ([0747], FIG. 3 also show two possible examples. In the first, an issuing entity creates and maintains a register of tokens. Each token that is issued is written to the register so that for each token that is put into circulation there may be a record comprising (at least) an identifier/serial number which uniquely identifies the respective token, and the token value associated with that token.)
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230214792A1) in view of Xu (US20220414120A1) in view of Moore (US20100235882A1), and further in view of COUGHLAN et al. (US20240405990A1).
With respect to claim 16
Lee teaches the limitation:
receiving, by a receiver device associated with a receiver from a sender device associated with a sender, a transfer request comprising a minted token in a token space associated with parameters ([0382], 1. Alice prepares and sends her dynamic token UTXO details and a return script detailing the bitcoin script to use as the output for Alice's dynamic token to Bobmart, which can be via an email that Bobmart can access.2. BobMart has a receiver wallet to provide the loyalty point service and uses a token validation service to verify Alice's token details. Token wallet validation can be performed by BobMart or a third-party support service, and functions to confirm Alice's token is the correct type of token e.g., a Bobmart loyalty token; ([0035], The transaction has one or more token-related outputs, each of which represents a respective token issued by a Token Issuer and specifies a quantity of a) token units and b) token-related cryptocurrency associated with the respective token. The transaction can also have at least one Issuer-related output comprising issuance data associated with the Token Issuer. The token value can correspond to a function of the cryptocurrency value e.g. satoshi value held in the token. During the creation of a token the authenticity can be established through a set of transactions, including at least one of: an inaugural transaction, which can be root node holding digital identities and/or digital signatures of the issuer and/or authority responsible for the tokens, which can also include additional signatures from, for example, a governmental or regulatory authority; see also [0491], A token transaction created on a writechain can establish a set of parameters that can be referenced within the database. The parameters can be, for example, a table or any other database feature. The transaction ID can be the hash of the parent transaction from which it was derived.);
verifying, by the receiver device, the minted token by checking that token attributes of the minted token are within the parameters of the (see [0254] A minting transaction also has at its input an amount of cryptocurrency, such that each subsequent token transaction can be authenticated. Authentication occurs at two levels. Firstly, via a token ledger, wherein a recipient of a token can verify its authenticity by determining its relationship with the or each of the transactions in the set of transactions that created the token i.e. by determining that the token to be received was derived from a linear transaction history including a ‘mint’ transaction. This first level of authentication applies, as viewed in FIG. 9 b , by the relationship between the tokens e.g. Token X, token X.1 and Token Y. Secondly, each token transaction includes an amount of cryptocurrency and, therefore, the authenticity of the UTXO is determined by miners processing the transaction. Through this relationship, a recipient can determine the authenticity of a token's cryptocurrency UTXO, as illustrated by the hashed lines between the tokens and the cryptocurrency ledger);
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Xu teaches:
([0063], Further, tokens can be split by rights, the right set in a token may be split into two disjoint subsets, thus a token is divided into two; see also [0009], The transactions contain tokens, and a token contains a value and a right set, the right set is a set of rights, and a right is an index or a handle referencing a node in the right forest.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee with the teaching of Xu as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Lee of creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets to include a system of managing token’s rights or space as taught in Xu for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Lee in view of Xu don’t explicitly disclose, but Moore teaches:
….Wherein the minted token comprises token attributes including a time-to-live parameter, and an amount of token-related digital currency ([0058], Each token used in the token management system 300 includes a token identification field 502, an expiration date field 504, a token value field 506, a token type field 508, a token group field 510, a payer identification field 512, and a payee identification field 514.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu with the teaching of Moore as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Xu, for example creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a system of defining token attributes as taught in Moore for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
modifying, by the receiver device, a status of the minted token to form a modified token ([0115], The token redeemer 2706 receives the transferred token and elects to redeem the token value using a process illustrated in either FIG. 14 or 19 which results in a transfer of the token value in the amount of $5.00 from the network account of the token creator 2702 to the network account of the token redeemer 2706.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee with the teaching of Moore as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Lee of creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets to include a system of modifying a token’s status taught in Moore for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Lee in view Xu in view of Moore do not explicitly disclose, but COUGHLAN teaches:
signing, by the receiver device, the modified token to form a cleared token ([0050], Each output specifies an amount representing a quantity of a digital asset as property, an example of which is a user 103 to whom the output is cryptographically locked (requiring a signature or other solution of that user in order to be unlocked and thereby redeemed or spent).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Moore with the teaching of COUGHLAN as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Moore for example, creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a method of signing a modified token as taught in COUGHLAN for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
With respect to claim 17
The combination of Lee, Xu, Moore, and COUGHLAN teaches the limitation of claim 16. COUGHLAN further teaches: wherein the minted token is a token that is signed using a cryptographic key of the sender device or a sender computer associated with the sender ([0124], A mint transaction mints, i.e. issues, an amount of tokens. The mint transaction may be signed by the token issuer 702 (i.e. the mint transaction may include an input comprising a signature linked to an issuing public key owned by the token issuer 702) and comprises an output that locks an initial amount of tokens.)
With respect to claim 18
The combination of Lee, Xu, Moore, and COUGHLAN teaches the limitation of claim 16. COUGHLAN further teaches: wherein modifying the status of the minted token comprises updating a status of the minted token to a cleared status ([0050], Each output specifies an amount representing a quantity of a digital asset as property, an example of which is a user 103 to whom the output is cryptographically locked (requiring a signature or other solution of that user in order to be unlocked and thereby redeemed or spent).)
With respect to claim 19
The combination of Lee, Xu, Moore, and COUGHLAN teaches the limitation of claim 16. COUGHLAN further teaches: updating, by the receiver device, a destination ledger to include a value in the minted token ([0126-0128], In order for the target token transaction to be a valid token transaction it must be part of a transaction chain that leads back to the mint transaction. That is, the target transaction must include an input that either references (i.e. spends) an output of the mint transaction, or that references a previous token transaction that is part of the transaction chain leading back to the mint transaction….. Once validated, i.e. once the authenticity of the token(s) in the target token transaction has been established, the validating entity 701 may submit the target token transaction to the blockchain network 106.)
With respect to claim 20
The combination of Lee, Xu, Moore, and COUGHLAN teaches the limitation of claim 16. Lee further teaches: transmitting, by the receiver device to the sender device, a token template comprising at least some of the token attributes ([0151], The minting transaction and/or said database establishment record can include a form including (i) a template component, and (ii) a data-entry component, wherein data-entry is implemented in one or more transaction outputs of a form token.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230214792A1) in view of Xu (US20220414120A1) in view of Moore (US20100235882A1), and further in view of Al-Herz et al. (US20090048979A1).
With respect to claim 6
The combination of Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Al-Herz teaches: receiving, by the sender device from the receiver device, a clearing signature; and transmitting, by the sender device to the sender computer, the clearing signature ([0013], The pair (x, Sign(x)) is now redeemable by B at a value usually determined by the signature being used, and B cannot recognize C when some payee P presents (x, Sign(x)) (since the knowledge of kx does not allow practical recognition of x nor of Sign(x); see [0199-0200], The signature verifying program verifies the validity of the digital cash token using the digital cash issuer's public key PKI. If the signature is valid, the digital cash issuer determines whether the token has already been spent. If the token has not been spent, the random number is deleted. The digital cash issuer signature generating program signs the shop identification SID and the amount of digital cash x with the digital cash issuer's secret key SKI and stores [SID,x]SKI temporarily, to send it to the shop's bank. The encryption program encrypts the information using the public key of the shop PKS, and sends the encrypted information PKS([SID,x]SKI) to the shop via a communications path…The shop receives PKS([SID,x]SKI) and the decryption program decrypts the information using the secret key SKS. The signature verifying program verifies the signature with the public key of the issuer PKI. Referring to FIG. 48, if the signature is valid, the shop random number generating program generates a random number Rs then the signature generating program signs Rs with the shop's secret key SKS. The encryption program encrypts the signed random number [Rs]SKS using the user's pseudonym public key pPKU and sends pPKU([RS]SKS) to the user via a communications path.), wherein the sender computer verifies the clearing signature ([0107], The issuer may include a processing device, a storage device, an encryption program, a decryption program, a signature generating program, a signature verifying program, and a random number generating program.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu/Moore with the teaching of Al-Herz as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Xu/Moore, creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a method of transmitting a clearing signature as taught in Al-Herz for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230214792A1) in view of in view of Xu (US20220414120A1) in view of Moore (US20100235882A1), and further in view of Krishnaswamy et al. (US20230360007A1).
With respect to claim 12
The combination of Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lee further teaches: the sender computer generates the base token ([0035], The transaction has one or more token-related outputs, each of which represents a respective token issued by a Token Issuer and specifies a quantity of a) token units and b) token-related cryptocurrency associated with the respective token. The transaction can also have at least one Issuer-related output comprising issuance data associated with the Token Issuer. The token value can correspond to a function of the cryptocurrency value e.g. satoshi value held in the token. During the creation of a token the authenticity can be established through a set of transactions, including at least one of: an inaugural transaction, which can be root node holding digital identities and/or digital signatures of the issuer and/or authority responsible for the tokens…)
The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Krishnaswamy teaches:
….and debits the amount from a source ledger of the sender ([0086], At step (438), a “check and debit” smart contract microservice can be invoked at the TSDCB platform manager (322), which checks the sender's account balance and debits the sender's account to enable the transfer. Once the debit is completed, another “transfer” smart contract microservice can be invoked to credit a receiving account…… At step (440), based on the user public keys for the sender and the receiver, the corresponding TA-IDs for the sender and the receiver are identified, so that the blockchain ledger can record the transfer between the sending and receiving accounts on the TSDCB platform.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu/Moore with the teaching of Krishnaswamy as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Xu/Moore, creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a method of debiting an amount from a source ledger of the sender as taught in Krishnaswamy for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230214792A1) in view of Xu (US20220414120A1) in view of Moore (US20100235882A1), and further in view of Samel et al. (US20180032977A1).
With respect to claim 13
The combination of Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Samel teaches:
wherein the receiver device and the sender device are mobile phones ([0021], The sender device 102 and the receiver device 104 may for example be a mobile terminal (such as a smart phone, a smart watch or a tablet) with an advanced mobile operating system, such as iOS of Apple Inc. or Android of Google Inc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu/Moore with the teaching of Samel as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Lee/Xu/Moore, creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a system of transferring funds from a sender account to a receiver account using mobile devices as taught in Samel for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230214792A1) in view of in view of Xu (US20220414120A1) in view of Moore (US20100235882A1), and further in view of Bomar et al. (US20110154467A1).
With respect to claim 9
The combination of Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Bomar teaches: wherein the token space is an n-dimensional space of n-parameters ([0039], The token map, as referred to herein, is a table, multi-dimensional array, or other means for associating a token with a PAN or portion thereof (such as the middle eight digits of a PAN)..), wherein the n-parameters include one or more of a sender ID, a receiver ID, a time-to-live, a value, or a device type (see [0144].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu/Moore with the teaching of Bomar as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Xu/Moore, creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a system of associating a token multi-dimensional array to the token parameters/information as taught in Bomar for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230214792A1) in view of Xu (US20220414120A1) in view of Moore (US20100235882A1), and further in view of Sabba et al. (US20160224977A1).
With respect to claim 11
The combination of Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Sabba teaches: wherein the sender device and the receiver device are online ([0070], At step 410, a first payment token is obtained by the first mobile device 101A. The first mobile device 101A is online at this time. The second mobile device 101B may be online or offline at this time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu/Moore with the teaching of Sabba as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Xu/Moore, creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a method of transferring funds online as taught in Sabba for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
With respect to claim 14
The combination of Lee, Xu, and Moore teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Sabba teaches: wherein the sender device and the receiver device operate offline and without connection to any other devices or computers ([0075], At step 430, a connection is established between the first mobile device 101A and the second mobile device 101B. The connection may be a local area connection and may utilize any suitable short range communication technology including Bluetooth™, RF, mesh networking, IR, etc. In an exemplary embodiment, the first mobile device 101A and the second mobile device 101B are offline at this time in the sense that they are not in communication with a remote server computer such as the server computer 130 in the processing network 120.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee/Xu/Moore with the teaching of Sabba as they relate to a system of exchanging payment transaction using tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lee/Xu/Moore, creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenised assets in Lee, to include a method of transferring funds offline as taught in Sabba for predictable results of improving the exchange of digital assets between parties.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 5/28/2026
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights