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 October 16, 2023.
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.
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.
Claims 47 and 48 recite the limitation "the first terminal" in the clause “respectively signing the first transaction information and the second transaction information by using a private key of the first terminal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first terminal” in the claims.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will presume that terminal is supported.
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, and 47-53 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 and 47-53 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];
[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;
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;
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;
respectively signing the first transaction information and the second transaction information [by using a private key of the first terminal];
generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency, and generating a second trust chain according to the signed second transaction information and the digital currency; and
sending the first trust chain [to a second terminal] so that the second terminal and the first terminal achieve, according to the first trust chain, an offline transaction corresponding to 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 3 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 3 includes the additional element of a public key of the second 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 3 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 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 claims 50 and 53 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 50 and 53 include a public key of the second 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 claims 50 and 53 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).
Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
[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
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 a commercial or legal interaction. 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 at least two terminals 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 at least two terminals. 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 5 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(s) 32-39 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 method claim 32 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 36. Claim 32 recites the following limitations:
receiving a first trust chain sent [by a first terminal], wherein the first trust chain indicates a digital currency to be transacted and a transaction time of the digital currency; and
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, performing an offline transaction [with the first terminal] according to 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 in claim 32 is 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) 36 is 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 a first 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) 32 and 36 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) 32 and 36 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
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 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.
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 1-4, 15, and 47-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamai (US 2023/0342762) 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…”)
generating a first trust chain according to the signed first transaction information and the digital currency, and generating a second trust chain according to the signed second transaction information and the digital currency; and (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…”)
sending the first trust chain to a second terminal, so that the second terminal and the first terminal achieve, according to the first trust chain,… (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.”)
…an offline transaction corresponding to the first transaction amount. (Shamai: 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, Pomassl teaches:
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.”)
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.”
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 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/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) 3, 50, and 53:
The combination of Shamai/Pomassl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 47, and 48, respectively. Pomassl further teaches:
wherein the generating the 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. (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 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) 4 and 51:
The combination of Shamai/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 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:
Shamai 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 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 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 (US 2023/0342762) in view of Conley (US 2022/0114584).
Regarding claim(s) 32 and 36:
Shamai teaches:
a method for managing an offline duration of a digital currency, applied to a second terminal, comprising: receiving a first trust chain sent by a first terminal, wherein the first trust chain indicates a digital currency to be transacted and a transaction time of the digital currency; 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 does not teach, however, Conley teaches:
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, performing an offline transaction with the first terminal 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 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/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 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 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/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/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 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 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/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/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.
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 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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 3698
February 7, 2026
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693