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 application filed on April 28, 2026.
Claims 5-14, 16-31, and 40-46 are cancelled.
Claims 49-53 are added.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15, 32-39, and 47-53 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s rejection of claims 47 and 48 under 35 USC 112 (b) is no longer applicable in light of Applicant’s amendments of claims 47 and 48. Examiner agrees. In light of Applicant’s arguments, Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 47 and 48 under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed subject matter is not an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention recited a method for splitting a digital currency in a transaction, generating two separate transactions, and performing offline transactions among a network of terminals. This is an example of a commercial interaction, and commercial interactions are a type of abstract idea categorized under the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claim integrates any abstract concept into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims solved the technical problem by enabling the first terminal to generate a self-contained, independently verifiable trust chain. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention demonstrates a method for performing transactions within a network of terminals using technical operations rooted in computer science and cryptology. This is merely an application of current technology to address a business problem: consumers may not be guaranteed to be online in real time when performing a transaction with the digital currency (see Spec: pgh 4). The application of current technology does not amount to an improvement of the technology because Applicant has not identified any technological limitations or problems that were overcome in executing the “offline” transactions. Without a technological solution to an identified technological problem tied to the use of computer science and cryptology to perform the transactions, there isn’t a basis to argue that the claims solved a technological problem. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims constitute a specific, tangible improvement to the functionality of terminal devices. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not shown that the terminal devices were modified by the claimed invention in any way to impart any new functionality on them. The claimed invention merely uses the network of terminal devices as a tool to implement the abstract idea of performing transactions outside of a main computer network. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued the prior art did not teach or suggest “the first terminal signing the first transaction information by using a private key of the first terminal”, “the first terminal generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency”, and “wherein the first terminal generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency comprise: signing the first transaction information and a public key of the second terminal by using the private key of the first terminal to generate a first transaction chain; and generating the first trust chain according to the first transaction chain and the digital currency; or, encrypting the signed first transaction information by using a public key of the second terminal to generate a first transaction chain; and generating the first trust chain according to the first transaction chain and the digital currency”. Examiner disagrees. The Lyons reference teaches “the first terminal signing the first transaction information by using a private key of the first terminal” (Lyons: pgh 55, “The signing module may sign blockchain transactions using a private key include in a key pair included in a structured data set being used in an electronic transaction.”), “the first terminal generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency” (Lyons: pgh 50, “…the processing device may include and/or be comprised of plurality of engines and/or modules specially configured to perform one or more functions of the processing device, such as a generation module…”; pgh 53, “…the generation module may be configured to generate a blockchain transaction…”), and “wherein the first terminal generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency comprise: signing the first transaction information and a public key of the second terminal by using the private key of the first terminal to generate a first transaction chain (Lyons: pgh 26, “…the integrated circuit card may be configured to generate data for use in an offline data exchange with an electronic point of sale device, which may be used in the conducting of an electronic transaction via a blockchain.”); and generating the first trust chain according to the first transaction chain and the digital currency (Lyons: pgh 39, “The integrated circuit may then generate a signed blockchain transaction.”); or, encrypting the signed first transaction information by using a public key of the second terminal to generate a first transaction chain; and generating the first trust chain according to the first transaction chain and the digital currency” (Lyons: pgh 54, “The validation module may also be configured to validate data received from the electronic point of sale device used in the generation of a new blockchain transaction…”). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued the prior art did not teach or suggest, the “splitting” recited in the amended claim 1, which refers to the payment terminal locally generating two cryptographically signed chains – the payment chain and the change chain – using its private key, without any server or network connectivity whatsoever. Examiner disagrees. The Lyons reference teaches the payment terminal locally generating two cryptographically signed chains – the payment chain and the change chain – using its private key, without any server or network connectivity whatsoever (Lyons: pgh 40, “In instances where the output value associated with the previous blockchain transaction may be greater than the payment amount for the new blockchain transaction, the integrated circuit card may be configured to generate a remainder address for receipt of the remaining blockchain currency amount…”). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued the prior art did not teach or suggest a payment terminal actively generating a self-contained, self-verifiable state object – the trust chain – which constitutes a complete, standalone cryptographic proof of the digital currency’s state, with no reliance whatsoever on any external blockchain. In other words, the solution recited in claim 1 is “creating a chain” while the prior art is merely “reading the chain”. Examiner disagrees. The Lyons reference teaches creating a chain for offline transactions (see Lyons: pgh 6, “A method for conducting an offline data exchange associated with a blockchain includes…generating, by a generation module of the integrate circuit card, transaction data…”). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued the prior art did not teach or suggest a system in which no server is involved at all. Applicant argued that the claimed invention’s splitting operation is autonomous and performed locally by the payment terminal. The resulting “second trust chain” is designed to facilitate subsequent offline transactions, with the purpose of achieving consensus between payer and payee without any trusted third party – not for fee collection or accounting purposes. Applicant further argued that the objectives, system architectures, and implementation entities are fundamentally different than the prior art. Examiner disagrees. The Lyons reference teaches offline transactions performed locally by the payment terminal without the aid of a trusted third party to achieve consensus between payer and payee (Lyons: pgh 41, “…the integrated circuit card may be configured to verify or otherwise validate the additional data prior to generating, signing, or transmitting the new blockchain transaction.”). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued the prior art did not teach or suggest “the second terminal verifying the first transaction information in the first transaction chain by using a public key of the first terminal; or, the second terminal first decrypting the first transaction chain by using a private key of the second terminal to obtain the first transaction information signed by the private key of the first terminal, and then further verifying the first transaction information by using the public key of the first terminal” and the technical feature “the second terminal performing, when a verification of the first transaction information is passed, an offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount”. Examiner disagrees. The Lyons reference teaches “the second terminal verifying the first transaction information in the first transaction chain by using a public key of the first terminal; or, the second terminal first decrypting the first transaction chain by using a private key of the second terminal to obtain the first transaction information signed by the private key of the first terminal, and then further verifying the first transaction information by using the public key of the first terminal” and the technical feature “the second terminal performing, when a verification of the first transaction information is passed, an offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount” (Lyons: pgh 41, “…the integrated circuit card may be configured to verify or otherwise validate the additional data prior to generating, signing, or transmitting the new blockchain transaction.”; pgh 76, “…the receiving device of the integrated circuit card may receive the encrypted package…the decryption module of the integrated circuit card may decrypt the package using the same one or more encryption algorithms or corresponding decryption algorithms…”). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued the prior art did not teach or suggest “the first terminal sending the first trust chain to a second terminal; the second terminal verifying the first transaction information by using a public key of the first terminal; and the second terminal performing, when a verification of the first transaction information is passed, an offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount”. Examiner disagrees. The Lyons reference teaches “the first terminal sending the first trust chain to a second terminal; the second terminal verifying the first transaction information by using a public key of the first terminal; and the second terminal performing, when a verification of the first transaction information is passed, an offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount” (Lyons: pgh 42, “Once the new blockchain transaction has been generated and signed, the integrated circuit card may electronically transmit the signed blockchain transaction to the electronic point of sale device using the established communication channel.”; pgh 42, “The signed blockchain transaction may then be posted to the blockchain network…Once the transaction has been posted to the blockchain, the merchant will have claim to the transaction value of blockchain currency…”). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that “terminals” as recited in the claimed invention are interpreted as hardware based on Fig. 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15, which references claim 1, recites the limitation “a trust chain” in line 5. Claim 1 recites both “a first trust chain” in line 12 and “a second trust chain” in line 13. It is unclear whether the trust chain in claim 15 is the same as the first trust chain, the second trust chain, or is an entirely different third trust chain. Claim 15 also recites “each trust chain” in line 8. It is unclear what Applicant means by reciting “each trust chain” because the number of recited trust chains is unclear. It is also unclear whether “each trust chain” is referring to the trust chain recited in claim 15, the first trust chain recited in claim 1, the second trust chain recited in claim 1, both trust chains recited in claim 1, or all of them. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for “a trust chain” in claim unless it is a reference to one of the trust chains in claim 1, which is unclear for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
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) 1-4, 15, 32-39, 47-49, and 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-4, 32-39, 47-49, and 51-53 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 47 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and independent product Claim 48. Claim 47 recites the following limitations:
[one or more processors; and]
[a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs;
the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to implement following actions:]
[a first terminal] determining a first transaction request, wherein the first transaction request indicates a digital currency to be transacted and first transaction information, and the first transaction information comprises a first transaction amount;
[the first terminal] generating second transaction information comprising a second transaction amount according to the first transaction information, wherein the second transaction amount is a difference between an available balance of the digital currency and the first transaction amount;
[the first terminal] respectively signing the first transaction information and the second transaction information [by using a private key of the first terminal];
[the first terminal] generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency, and [the first terminal] generating a second trust chain according to the signed second transaction information and the digital currency, wherein [the first terminal] generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency comprises:
signing the first transaction information and a public key of the second terminal [by using the private key of the first terminal] to generate a first transaction chain;
and generating the first trust chain according to the first transaction chain and the digital currency;
or, encrypting the signed first transaction information by using a public key [of the second terminal] to generate a first transaction chain;
and generating the first trust chain according to the first transaction chain and the digital currency;
[the first terminal] sending the first trust chain [to a second terminal];
[the second terminal] verifying the first transaction information in the first transaction chain by using a public key [of the first terminal];
or, [the second terminal] first decrypting the first transaction chain [by using a private key of the second terminal] to obtain the first transaction information signed [by the private key of the first terminal], and then further verifying the first transaction information by using the public key [of the first terminal];
[the second terminal] performing, when a verification of the first transaction information is passed, an offline transaction [with the first terminal], according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more processors, storage apparatus, private key, first terminal, and second terminal in Claim 47 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. Claim(s) 1 and 48 are also abstract for similar reasons. (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 one or more processors, a storage apparatus, a private key, a first terminal, and a second terminal. 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(s) 1, 47, and 48 are 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(s) 1, 47, and 48 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
Dependent claim 2 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 2 includes the additional element of a third terminal. However, the third terminal does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 4 includes a public key of the first terminal. However, the public key does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 32 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 32 includes a first terminal and a second terminal. However, the first terminal and the second terminal do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 32 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 33 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 32 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 33 includes a first terminal. However, the first terminal does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 34 and 37 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 32 and 36 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 34 and 37 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 34 and 37 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 35 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 32 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 35 includes a currency management apparatus. However, the currency management apparatus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 35 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 36 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 36 includes a currency management apparatus and a second terminal. However, the currency management apparatus and second terminal do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 36 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 38 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 36 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 38 includes a second terminal. However, the second terminal does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 38 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 39 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 36 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 39 includes a fifth terminal. However, the fifth terminal does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 39 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 49 and 52 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 47 and 48 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 49 and 52 include a third terminal. However, the third terminal does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 49 and 52 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 51 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 47 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 51 includes a public key of the first terminal. However, the public key does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 51 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 15 is 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 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
a system for splitting a digital currency in a transaction, [comprising at least two terminals],
[wherein the at least two terminals comprises a first terminal and a second terminal, and the first terminal and the second terminal is configured] to execute the method for splitting the digital currency in the transaction as claimed in 1,
a trust chain is stored [in each of the at least two terminals], the trust chain comprises the digital currency and one or more pieces of transaction information, and the transaction information comprises a transaction amount; and
a sum of transaction amounts comprised in the last transaction information in each trust chain is equal to a denomination of the digital currency.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The first terminal and second terminal in Claim 15 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 a first terminal and a second terminal. 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 15 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 15 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not 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.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 4, 15, and 47-49, and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamai (US 2023/0342762) in view of Lyons (US 2017/0236121) in view of Pomassl (WO2020/025141).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 47, and 48:
Shamai teaches:
one or more processors; (Shamai: pgh 67, “…one or more tasks according to exemplary embodiments of method and/or system as described herein are performed by a data processor…”)
a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs; (Shamai: pgh 67, “Optionally, the data processor includes a volatile memory for storing instructions…”)
the first terminal generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency, and the first terminal generating a second trust chain according to the signed second transaction information and the digital currency… (Shamai: pgh 208, “…one or more of the previous transactions, specifically the least recent previous transactions may be split in order to support one or more transactions to one or more third devices.”; pgh 45, “…the isolated device infers the respective identifier according to the private key of the subset of computing nodes which participated in transferring the one or more transactions.”; pgh 16, “…the digital assets comprise cryptocurrency…”)
the second terminal performing, when a verification of the first transaction information is passed, an offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount (Shamai: pgh 38, “…the other device(s) delivers the second commission directly to the one or more computing nodes which record in the blockchain both the one or more transactions.”; pgh 57, “…the isolated device is further configured to receive the one or more transactions from another isolated device disconnected from the blockchain network…”)
Shamai does not teach, however, Lyons teaches:
…wherein the first terminal generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency comprises: signing the first transaction information and a public key of the second terminal by using the private key of the first terminal to generate a first transaction chain; and generating the first trust chain according to the firs transaction chain and the digital currency; or encrypting the signed first transaction information by using a public key of the second terminal to generate a first transaction chain; and generating the first trust chain according to the first transaction chain and the digital currency; (Lyons: pgh 55, “The signing module may sign blockchain transactions using a private key include in a key pair included in a structured data set being used in an electronic transaction.”; pgh 50, “…the processing device may include and/or be comprised of plurality of engines and/or modules specially configured to perform one or more functions of the processing device, such as a generation module…”; pgh 53, “…the generation module may be configured to generate a blockchain transaction…”)
the first terminal sending the first trust chain to a second terminal; (Lyons: pgh 42, “Once the new blockchain transaction has been generated and signed, the integrated circuit card may electronically transmit the signed blockchain transaction to the electronic point of sale device using the established communication channel.”)
the second terminal verifying the first transaction information in the first transaction chain be using a public key of the first terminal; or the second terminal first decrypting the first transaction chain by using a private key of the second terminal to obtain the first transaction information signed by the private key of the first terminal, and then further verifying the first transaction information by using the public key of the first terminal; and (Lyons: pgh 41, “…the integrated circuit card may be configured to verify or otherwise validate the additional data prior to generating, signing, or transmitting the new blockchain transaction.”; pgh 76, “…the receiving device of the integrated circuit card may receive the encrypted package…the decryption module of the integrated circuit card may decrypt the package using the same one or more encryption algorithms or corresponding decryption algorithms…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai to include the teachings of Lyons because “…cryptocurrencies may present major security concerns…” (Lyons: pgh 7). Shamai/Lyons does not teach, however, Pomassl teaches:
a first terminal determining a first transaction request, wherein the first transaction request indicates a digital currency to be transacted and first transaction information, and the first transaction information comprises a first transaction amount; (Pomassl: pg. 66, “The processing system 100 supports the settlement of such trades via cryptocurrencies. To this end, the merchant terminal 101 provides transaction information 102. The transaction information 102 may e.g. be generated based on an input by the merchant. Such an input may for example refer to an amount to be paid by the client. The amount may e.g. be provided by the merchant to the merchant terminal 101 as amount of a fiat currency or as amount of a cryptocurrency.”)
the first terminal generating second transaction information comprising a second transaction amount according to the first transaction information, wherein the second transaction amount is a difference between an available balance of the digital currency and the first transaction amount; (Pomassl: pg 46-47, “Since the automatic transaction handling processor is under control of the operator of the processing system, the automatic transaction handling processor may automatically split transactions that income into the system wallet for example to deduce the fees that incur for using the processing system and transfer the fees onto a wallet of the operator of the processing system.”)
the first terminal respectively signing the first transaction information and the second transaction information by using a private key of the first terminal; (Pomassl: pg. 2, “A private key in contrast allows users to write and sign transactions in the public ledger and therefore spend or transfer coins from the wallet.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Lyons to include the teachings of Pomassl because there is a need for an improved cryptocurrency processing that reduces the effort for users when working with cryptocurrencies (Pomassl: pg 2).
Regarding claim(s) 2, 49, and 52:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 47, and 52, respectively. Shamai further teaches:
sending the second trust chain to a third terminal, so that the third terminal and the first terminal achieve, according to the second trust chain, an offline transaction corresponding to the second transaction amount. (Shamai: 190, “The other device may then transfer at least part of the second value to the third device based on the artificial sub-transactions of one or more of the hierarchal split previous transaction…”)
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 51:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 47, respectively. Pomassl further teaches:
wherein the generating the second trust chain according to the signed second transaction information and the digital currency comprises: signing the second transaction information and a public key of the first terminal by using the private key of the first terminal to generate a second transaction chain; and generating the second trust chain according to the second transaction chain and the digital currency. (Pomassl: pg 5, “Further, it is understood, that an address may be generated from multiple keys or via a script. The private key, also called a secret key, serves to sign transactions from the address or public key. The address or public key may also be used to look up the amount of coins and/or assets in that respective address in the blockchain.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Lyons to include the teachings of Pomassl because there is a need for an improved cryptocurrency processing that reduces the effort for users when working with cryptocurrencies (Pomassl: pg 2).
Regarding claim(s) 15:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shamai further teaches:
a system for splitting a digital currency in a transaction, comprising at least two terminals, wherein…a trust chain is stored in each of the at least two terminals, the trust chain comprises the digital currency and one or more pieces of transaction information, and the transaction information comprises a transaction amount; and (Shamai: pgh 31, “Each hierarchical split level comprises a predefined number of artificial sub-transactions each having the identifier of the one or more least recent previous transaction and associated with a predefined sub-value…”; pgh 83, “As known in the art, each transaction of digital assets is recorded in the blockchain…”)
Shamai/Pomassl does not teach, however, Lyons teaches:
…the at least two terminals comprises a first terminal and a second terminal, and the first terminal and the second terminal is configured to execute the method for splitting the digital currency in the transaction as claimed in claim 1… (Lyons: pgh 40, “In instances where the output value associated with the previous blockchain transaction may be greater than the payment amount for the new blockchain transaction, the integrated circuit card may be configured to generate a remainder address for receipt of the remaining blockchain currency amount…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Pomassl to include the teachings of Lyons because “…cryptocurrencies may present major security concerns…” (Lyons: pgh 7). Shamai/Lyons does not teach, however, Pomassl teaches:
a sum of transaction amounts comprised in the last transaction information in each trust chain is equal to a denomination of the digital currency. (Pomassl: pg 30-31, “…a splitting factor may be defined, wherein a high splitting factor may define that a higher amount is taken from the original transaction…a low splitting factor may define that a low amount is taken from the original transaction and that said amount is redistributed…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Lyons to include the teachings of Pomassl because there is a need for an improved cryptocurrency processing that reduces the effort for users when working with cryptocurrencies (Pomassl: pg 2).
Claims 32-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl in view of Conley (US 2022/0114584).
Regarding claim(s) 32:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shamai further teaches:
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first trust chain further indicates a transaction time of the digital currency, and the second terminal performing the offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount comprises: (Shamai: pgh 155, “The previous transactions of digital assets are stored in the depository allocated for the isolated device in the other device in a predefined order…the predefined order may be based on a time of transfer of each previous transaction…”)
Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl does not teach, however, Conley teaches:
the second terminal determining a first offline duration of the digital currency according to a first current time and the transaction time, and when the first offline duration is less than a duration threshold, the second terminal performing an offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency and the first transaction amount. (Conley: pgh 85, “In an embodiment, a BAR is associated with an expiry time such that the amount transferred to the BAR reverts to a sending account at the expiry time if the BAR is not previously cashed using the secret.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl to include the teachings of Conley because there is a desire to transfer crypto-assets with less friction (Conley: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 33:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl/Conley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32. Shamai further teaches:
…and sending a prompt information for updating the transaction time of the digital currency to the first terminal, so that the first terminal updates the transaction time of the digital currency according to the prompt information. (Shamai: pgh 142, “The isolated device may be further configured and operated to update its local account with transactions received from one or more of the other isolated devices…”; pgh 149, “The identifier of each transaction is computed based on the inputs and outputs of the transaction…the identifier may be further based on a lock_time parameter…”)
Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl does not teach, however, Conley teaches:
when the first offline duration is not less than the duration threshold, rejecting the offline transaction requested by the first terminal, (Conley: pgh 242, “…the transaction data comprises expirty data to determine an expiry time for associating with the bearer token record at which expiry time the asset revers to the sending account…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl to include the teachings of Conley because there is a desire to transfer crypto-assets with less friction (Conley: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 34 and 37:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl/Conley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 32 and 36, respectively. Shamai further teaches:
after performing the offline transaction with the first terminal according to the digital currency, further comprising: updating the transaction time of the digital currency according to a time of the offline transaction. (Shamai: pgh 156, “The content information of each previous transaction which may be provided to the isolated device via one or more limited length strings may include, for example, a time of transmittal…”; pgh 214, “…the isolated device may update its internal balance and records according to the transaction including its respective identifier as recorded in the blockchain.”)
Regarding claim(s) 35:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl/Conley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32. Shamai further teaches:
when establishing a communication connection with a currency management apparatus, further comprising: sending the digital currency to the currency management apparatus, so that the currency management apparatus updates the transaction time of the digital currency according to a second current time; and (Shamai: pgh 214, “…the isolated device may update its internal balance and records according to the transaction including its respective identifier as recorded in the blockchain.”; pgh 251, “When transferring a transaction to the account associated with the isolated device, the other device may create the transaction based on one or more of the valid transactions…”)
Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl does not teach, however, Conley teaches:
receiving the digital currency returned by the currency management apparatus. (Conley: pgh 9, “…the transaction data includes expiry data to establish an expiry time associated with the bearer token record at which expiry time the asset reverts to the sending account…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl to include the teachings of Conley because there is a desire to transfer crypto-assets with less friction (Conley: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 36:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shamai further teaches:
the method as claimed in claim 1, the method further comprising: a currency management apparatus receiving a transaction request sent by a second terminal, wherein the transaction request indicates a digital currency to be transacted, and an attribute of the digital currency comprises a transaction time; and (Shamai: pgh 155, “The previous transactions of digital assets are stored in the depository allocated for the isolated device in the other device in a predefined order…the predefined order may be based on a time of transfer of each previous transaction…”)
Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl does not teach, however, Conley teaches:
the currency management apparatus determining a second offline duration of the digital currency according to a second current time and the transaction time, and the currency management apparatus performing, when the second offline duration is less than a duration threshold, a transaction according to the digital currency. (Conley: pgh 85, “In an embodiment, a BAR is associated with an expiry time such that the amount transferred to the BAR reverts to a sending account at the expiry time if the BAR is not previously cashed using the secret.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl to include the teachings of Conley because there is a desire to transfer crypto-assets with less friction (Conley: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 38:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl/Conley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 36. Shamai further teaches:
wherein the performing the transaction according to the digital currency comprises: achieving a payment process requested by the second terminal according to the digital currency; or redeeming the digital currency for the second terminal. (Shamai: pgh 144, “…it should be clear that the account manager executed by the processors of the isolated device is the software module which in fact executes the process.”)
Regarding claim(s) 39:
The combination of Shamai/Lyons/Pomassl/Conley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 36. Shamai further teaches:
further comprising: receiving a digital currency generation request sent by a fifth terminal, wherein the digital currency generation request indicates a denomination of a requested digital currency and user information corresponding to the fifth terminal; (Shamai: pgh 83, “…each transaction of digital assets is recorded in the blockchain with a respective identifier, for example, a hash code…”)
generating a digital currency corresponding to the user information and the denomination, and writing a generation time of the digital currency into the digital currency; and notifying the fifth terminal of the digital currency. (Shamai: pgh 149, “The identifier of each transaction is computer based on the input and outputs of the transaction…in some cryptocurrency blockchain protocols, for example, Bitcoin, the identifier may be further based on a lock_time parameter…”)
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Fawzy (US 2022/0084015) discloses a system and method for a platform supporting cryptocurrency transactions between users and organizations.
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
July 9, 2026
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights