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 amendments filed on August 27, 2025.
• Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 12-14, 16, 19, and 22-24 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 25-29 have been added.
• Claims 2, 6-9, 11, 15, 17, and 20-21 have been canceled.
• Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-19, and 22-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
New Specification objections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
New 35 USC § 112 rejections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 10, that the claims integrate a practical application , the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite generic computing components including at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions; web content on a device; inserting, by a programming interface, in the web content, the programming interface including an executable function of a browser application to request an action of a digital asset application, the programming interface including a callback function to the web content; a digital asset exchange of a blockchain network; a blockchain address associated with the web content. The additional elements are such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 10 regarding improvement to the functioning of browsers and blockchain systems, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0076]-[0077], describing challenges with converting digital assets and solutions of connecting a seller and buyer in a digital asset exchange.
Applicant’s reliance, on pages 10-12, upon Example 42 is misplaced. As an initial matter, with respect to USPTO Examples, the Examiner analyzes the claims under the two part framework under Alice/Mayo. The Examples provided in Office Guidance are hypothetical and intended to be illustrative only. While some of the fact patterns in the examples draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of court decisions. The claims in hypothetical Example 42 were found to be eligible because the claims addressed problems relating to alerting medical providers when a patients records were updated, addressing the challenges of converting the medical records to a standardized format. Example 42 explains that one of the challenges was records were often not in a standard format and it led to difficulties in sharing the medical information between providers at different locations. The claims in Example 42 directly address this challenge by claiming the converting the medical records to a standardized format and sending real-time messages to users with up-to-date patient information. Turning to the instant application, the claims are not addressing a problem technical in nature, but are an improvement to a business process i.e., improving converting digital assets and connecting a seller and buyer in a digital asset exchange. The Examiner finds no parallel between the Applicant’s claims and the hypothetical, patent-eligible Claim 3 described in Example 42 of the October 2019 update.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the lack of antecedent basis for the claimed limitation of “developer-defined parameter” (for example as in claim 29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitations of “associating the callback function with a unique identifier corresponding to the transaction request, wherein the callback function is executed in response to the transaction response including an identifier that corresponds to the unique identifier”. The Specification is devoid of support for the feature of associating a callback function with a unique identifier; nor does the Specification support the feature of a callback function being executing in response to a transaction response including the unique identifier. Therefore, it is new matter.
Claim 27 recites the limitations of “wherein executing the callback function to update the web content includes: modifying the web content to display a transaction status message, the transaction status message including the transaction identifier.” Although the Specification describes updating web content via API and that APIs include callback function, the Specification is devoid of support that updating including modifying the web content to display a transaction status message including the transaction identifier. In fact, the Specification is devoid of any support for any type of transaction status message displayed in the web content. Therefore this feature is new matter.
Claim 29 recites the limitation of “receiving, from the non-browser application, a developer-defined parameter about a customization of a web interface.” Although the Specification at [0224] describes parameters on how/when tokens are displayed and are customizable by the user, the Specification is devoid of support that these parameters are from a non-browser application. Therefore, this feature is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 29, the claim recites the limitation of “the web interface including a read-only address field with the resource locator associated with the web content.” The Specification is devoid of any support for the feature of web interface including a read-only address field. Nor does the Specification disclose any type of “read-only” address field. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-19, and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are directed to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 10), and an apparatus (claim 16). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 10, and 16 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 10, and 16 recite, in part, a method, a system, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations of claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites rendering content; in response to a user selection that triggers the function, detecting a transaction request from the content; initiating to authenticate the transaction request; transmitting a conversion request, the conversion request configured to cause exchange digital assets of a first type to digital assets of a second type; receiving a transaction response, the transaction response indicating transfer of the digital assets of the second type; and executing the callback function to update based on the transaction response. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for receiving a transaction request and processing the transaction by converting an asset amount from one type of asset to another type of asset, which is a commercial and legal interaction, specifically a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of computer components and blockchain do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements include generic computing components including at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions; web content on a device; inserting, by a programming interface, in the web content, the programming interface including an executable function of a browser application to request an action of a digital asset application, the programming interface including a callback function to the web content; a digital asset exchange of a blockchain network; a blockchain address associated with the web content. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions receiving a transaction, receiving a selection of a type of digital asset, and converting an amount of digital assets from a first type to a second type) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-5, 12-14, 18-19, 23, and 25 simply help to define the abstract idea. Furthermore, dependent 5, 22, 24, and 26-29 simply further describes the technological environment. Dependent claims 5 recite the additional elements of a second digital asset exchange, which merely further describe a network or computer of the generally linked computer network. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-19, and 22-29 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220237597 A1 (“Petersen”), and in further view of US 20190356701 A1 (“Prabhu”)
Regarding claim 1, Petersen discloses a method comprising (See at least FIG. 4.):
rendering web content on a device (For example, the user interface may be a user application, app, browser, user interface, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably executing on and/or accessible via the client device to interact with and/or cause display of information/data from the account management system. See at least [0067]. The volatile and non-volatile storage or memory can store databases, database instances, database management systems, data, applications, programs, program modules, scripts, source code, object code, byte code, compiled code, interpreted code, machine code, executable instructions, and/or the like to implement the functions of the client device… User application that is resident on the entity or accessible through a browser or other user interface for communicating with the account management system. See at least [0068].);
inserting, by a program interface, in the web content, the programming interface including an executable function of a browser application to request an action of a digital asset application, the programming interface including function to the web content (User interface displaying a “Continue” button allowing a user to request to convert digital asset, see at least [0167]-[0168] and FIG. 10, Button 1012 and FIG. 11 following the screen of FIG. 10 after selecting “Continue” button. The account management system may communicate with a digital asset exchange system at least to determine a conversion rate for a digital asset (e.g., a source digital asset, a target digital asset, an alternative digital asset), to cause the debiting of digital asset units from a digital asset user account, to cause the crediting of digital asset units to a digital asset user account, and to determine and/or update an account balance data object associated with a digital asset user account. See at least [0046]. The user interface may be a user application, app, browser, user interface, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably executing on and/or accessible via the client device to interact with and/or cause display of information/data from the account management system. As indicated, this may include a user application that is resident on the entity or accessible through a browser or other user interface for communicating with the account management system. See at least [0067]-[0068]. The Examiner interprets the browser on a user’s phone as the browser application, and the Examiner interprets the website running in the browser as the digital asset application.);
in response to a user selection that triggers the executable function, detecting, a transaction request including transaction data from the web content (User enters amount of units to convert to a fiat currency in a user interface. See at least [0163]-[0164] and FIG. 10-11. Transmitting a first source conversion rate application programming interface (API) request, the first source conversion rate API request indicating a source digital asset and including an identifier token associated with an end user. See at least [0085]-[0086]. See also [0006].);
initiating the digital asset application to authenticate the transaction request (The account management system is configured to provide the identifier token associated with the end user to a particular digital asset exchange system to identify a particular digital asset user account without compromising the authentication, credentials, identifiers, and/or the like for other digital asset user accounts managed by other digital asset exchange systems. For example, a first digital asset exchange system receiving the identifier token (e.g., with the source exchange rate API query) may be barred, precluded, prevented, and/or the like from accessing information related to a second digital asset user account for the target digital asset and managed by a second digital asset exchange system. See at least [0100].);
transmitting, a conversion request to a digital asset exchange of a blockchain network, the conversion request configured to cause the digital asset exchange to exchange digital assets of a first type to digital assets of a second type (generating and transmitting a conversion execution API query to the first digital asset exchange system 106A associated with the source digital asset. See at least [0130]. A first conversion execution API query is generated and transmitted to the first digital asset exchange system to cause an amount of source digital asset units to be debited from the source digital asset user account, and generating and transmitting a second conversion execution API query to credit a specific amount of units of the selected alternative digital asset to the alternative digital asset user account. See at least [0140]. Blockchain network, see at least [0047].);
receiving a transaction response from the blockchain network, the transaction response indicating transfer of the digital assets of the second type from the digital asset application to a blockchain address associated with the web content (The second conversion execution API query is configured to cause an amount of target digital asset units to be credited to a target digital asset user account. For example, the second digital asset exchange system 106B may update the unit balance of the second digital asset user account to reflect a credit, addition, deposit, and/or the like of the number of target digital asset units to credit. In some instances, the target digital asset may be a cryptoasset, and the second digital asset exchange system 106B may execute an on-chain transaction to credit the second digital asset user account with cryptoasset units. In various embodiments, the credit of target digital asset units may occur substantially concurrent or slightly subsequent to the debit of source digital asset units, advantageously enabling the end user to be in ownership of the desired target digital asset within a short period of time. Specifically, both the debit of source digital asset units and the credit of target digital asset units span a time period on a scale of milliseconds and/or seconds. See at least [0134] Receiving identifier token, identifier token includes cryptocurrency address see at least [0085]-[0086]. Cryptocurrency address, blockchain network, see at least [0086] and [0046]-[0047].); and
executing the function to update the web content based on the transaction response (Updating balance after a transaction, see at least [0046]. The client device may also comprise a user interface (that can include a display coupled to a processing element) and/or a user input interface (coupled to a processing element). For example, the user interface may be a user application, app, browser, user interface, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably executing on and/or accessible via the client device to interact with and/or cause display of information/data from the account management system. See at least [0067].).
While Petersen discloses a function, Petersen does not expressly disclose a callback function.
However, Prabhu discloses a callback function (see at least [0040]-[0044]. See also [0053], [0056], and [0065].).
From the teaching of Prabhu it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the function of Petersen to be a callback function, as taught by Prabhu, in order to improve computation efficiency (see Prabhu at least at [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Petersen and Prabhu disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Petersen further discloses receiving exchange rate information from the digital asset exchange, and rendering an interface displaying the exchange rate information, the exchange rate information including information that indicates an exchange rate for converting, using the digital asset exchange, the digital assets of the first type to the digital assets of the second type (A digital asset exchange system may be configured to generate, determine, and/or have access to historical, indicative, current, and/or real-time conversion rates for a digital asset (e.g., with respect to fiat currency, with respect to another digital asset). See at least [0074]. Displaying a conversion rate to the end user via a user interface. See at least [0106]. See also [0102], and see also [0168] and FIG. 11.),
the exchange rate information indicating a time validity for the exchange rate (Determining such conversion rates based at least in part on automated timing triggers for configurable time periods. That is, expiration of a configurable time period may prompt a new conversion rate to be determined. This is applied in various embodiments to provide (e.g., display) accurate information regarding the worth of various digital assets to an end user. Such automated timing triggers and configurable time periods are further applied to prevent inaccurate digital asset conversions from being requested by an end user. See at least [0030]. Displaying a conversion rate to the end user via a user interface. See at least [0106]. See also [0102], and see also [0168] and FIG. 11. The Examiner interprets displaying the conversion rate during the time period as an indication that the exchange rate is valid at that time.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Petersen and Prabhu disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Petersen further discloses the digital asset exchange is a first digital asset exchange, further comprising: determining to use the first digital asset exchange and a second digital asset exchange to exchange the digital assets of the first type to the digital assets of the second type (The execution of the first settlement transaction is responsive to a settlement request transmitted and originating from the account management system and received by the first digital asset exchange system. The settlement request may indicate and identify the debiting of the source digital asset units from the end user as well as the source conversion rate at the time of the debiting. See at least [0149]. Executing a second settlement transaction with the second digital asset exchange system associated with the target digital asset based at least in part on the crediting of the target digital asset units to the end user. In an example scenario, five-hundred target digital asset units were credited to the end user, and with the target exchange rate being one-hundred target digital asset units for USD $20, USD $100 is then transferred from the fiat currency central operating account associated with the account management system 102 to a fiat currency account associated with the second digital asset exchange system 106B. It may be appreciated that in some instances, the amount of fiat currency units transferred in the second settlement transaction may be the same amount of fiat currency units received from the first digital asset exchange system 106A for the debiting of source digital asset units. See at least [0153].).
Claim 10 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale. And Petersen discloses a system comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform claim operations (see at least [0041]-[0043].)
Claim 13 has similar limitations found in claim 3 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 16 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale. And, Petersen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations (see at least [0041]-[0043].).
Claim 18 has similar limitations found in claim 3 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Petersen and Prabhu disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Petersen further discloses inserting the program interface in the web content includes injecting into the web content to provide the program interface (User interface displaying a “Continue” button allowing a user to request to convert digital asset, see at least [0167]-[0168] and FIG. 10, Button 1012 and FIG. 11 following the screen of FIG. 10 after selecting “Continue” button. The account management system may communicate with a digital asset exchange system at least to determine a conversion rate for a digital asset (e.g., a source digital asset, a target digital asset, an alternative digital asset), to cause the debiting of digital asset units from a digital asset user account, to cause the crediting of digital asset units to a digital asset user account, and to determine and/or update an account balance data object associated with a digital asset user account. See at least [0046].).
While Petersen discloses injecting data, Petersen does not expressly disclose injecting a content script.
However, Prabhu discloses injecting a content script (The content script is injected at document start which is the earliest when it is possible to load an extension to override any page elements. See at least [0039].).
From the teaching of Prabhu it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the injected data of Petersen to be a content script, as taught by Prabhu in order to improve computation efficiency (see Prabhu at least at [0002]-[0004]).
Claims 4, 14, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Prabhu, and in further view of US 20230101940 A1 (“Filter”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Petersen and Prabhu disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Petersen discloses multiple digital asset exchanges (see Petersen at least at [0149]-[0153]), Petersen does not expressly disclose selecting, the digital asset exchange from a plurality of digital asset exchanges based on exchange rate information associated with a respective digital asset exchange of the plurality of digital asset exchanges
However, Filter discloses selecting the digital asset exchange from a plurality of digital asset exchanges based on exchange rate information associated with a respective digital asset exchange of the plurality of digital asset exchanges (Selecting a digital asset exchange jurisdiction to exchange funds with depending on whether the jurisdiction recognizes the currency as accepted for exchange. See at least [0176]-[0180]. See also FIG. 11. See also [0174]-[0175].).
From the teaching of Filter, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the browser application of Petersen to select the digital asset exchange from a plurality of digital asset exchanges based on exchange rate information associated with a respective digital asset exchange of the plurality of digital asset exchanges, as taught by Filter, in order to improve security and reduce fraud associated with transaction systems (see Filter at least at [0005]).
Claim 14 has similar limitations found in claim 4 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 19 has similar limitations found in claim 4 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Prabhu, and in further view of US 20220076289 A1 (“Tubay”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Petersen and Prabhu disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Petersen further discloses connect the digital asset application with the browser application by generating a communication channel between the digital asset application and the browser application (The architecture may comprise one or more account management systems, one or more client devices, one or more digital asset exchange systems, one or more networks. An account management system is configured to communicate with a plurality of client devices and execute digital asset conversions for a plurality of end users associated with the plurality of client devices. The account management system may communicate with a digital asset exchange system at least to determine a conversion rate for a digital asset (e.g., a source digital asset, a target digital asset, an alternative digital asset), to cause the debiting of digital asset units from a digital asset user account, to cause the crediting of digital asset units to a digital asset user account, and to determine and/or update an account balance data object associated with a digital asset user account. A digital asset exchange system may be and/or comprise a distributed ledger computing platform comprising a plurality of node computing entities. For example, in an example embodiment, a digital asset exchange system comprises a plurality of node computing entities in communication with one another via a network and each storing copies of a distributed ledger (e.g., a blockchain) for a digital asset (e.g., a cryptocurrency digital asset). Although not explicitly illustrated, the account management system may be a node computing entity of a digital asset exchange system to enable the execution of the conversion of a cryptocurrency digital asset to other digital assets and/or fiat currency. See at least [0046]-[0047]. The client device may also comprise a user interface (that can include a display coupled to a processing element) and/or a user input interface (coupled to a processing element). For example, the user interface may be a user application, app, browser, user interface, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably executing on and/or accessible via the client device to interact with and/or cause display of information/data from the account management system. See at least [0067].),
the digital asset application storing a key for authenticating blockchain requests (Blockchain transactions, see at least [0047]. Storing public key value, see at least [0086].).
While Petersen discloses communication channels, Petersen does not expressly disclose an inter-process communication channel. Furthermore, while Petersen discloses a key, Petersen does not expressly disclose a private key.
However, Tubay discloses an inter-process communication channel (see at least [0056].);
a private key (see at least [0173].).
From the teaching of Tubay, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the communication channel of Petersen to be an inter-process communication channel, as taught by Tubay, and to modify the key of Petersen to be a private key, as taught by Tubay, in order to improve security (see Tubay at least at [0104], [0120]-[0121], and [0131]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Prabhu, and in further view of US 20230169826 A1 (“Higgins”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Petersen and Prabhu discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Petersen further discloses initiating the digital asset application to authenticate the transaction request includes: transmitting, to the digital asset application, an authentication request to authenticate the transaction data of the transaction request (The account management system is configured to provide the identifier token associated with the end user to a particular digital asset exchange system to identify a particular digital asset user account without compromising the authentication, credentials, identifiers, and/or the like for other digital asset user accounts managed by other digital asset exchange systems. For example, a first digital asset exchange system receiving the identifier token (e.g., with the source exchange rate API query) may be barred, precluded, prevented, and/or the like from accessing information related to a second digital asset user account for the target digital asset and managed by a second digital asset exchange system. See at least [0100].);
receiving, from the digital asset application, a response (receiving a source conversion rate API response originating from the first digital asset exchange system. See at least [0092].).
While Petersen discloses a response, Petersen does not expressly disclose an authentication response that authenticates the transaction data (Following the creation of an authorization token, the gaming system communicates the created authorization token to the mobile device, such as via one or more messages including the created authorization token, for storage by the mobile device application and proceeds with executing one or more of the requested actions and communicating a requested action response to the mobile device. See at least [0178]. See also [0179].);
From the teaching of Higgins, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the response of Petersen to be a response that authenticates the transaction data, as taught by Higgins, in order to improve security of currency or asset conversion (see Higgins at least at abstract and [0064]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Prabhu, and in further view of US 20170102845 A1 (“Ozuysal”).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Petersen and Prabhu disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Petersen further discloses the digital asset application includes a mobile application installed on a mobile operating system of the device (see at least [0067].), and
wherein initiating the digital asset application to authenticate the transaction request includes transmitting a request, to the mobile application via an inter-process communication channel, to authenticate the transaction request (The account management system is configured to provide the identifier token associated with the end user to a particular digital asset exchange system to identify a particular digital asset user account without compromising the authentication, credentials, identifiers, and/or the like for other digital asset user accounts managed by other digital asset exchange systems. For example, a first digital asset exchange system receiving the identifier token (e.g., with the source exchange rate API query) may be barred, precluded, prevented, and/or the like from accessing information related to a second digital asset user account for the target digital asset and managed by a second digital asset exchange system. See at least [0100].).
While Petersen discloses a request, Petersen does not expressly disclose an intent request.
However, Ozuysal discloses an intent request (see at least [0062].).
From the teaching of Petersen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the request of Petersen to be an intent request, as taught by Ozuysal, in order to improve security and online browsing experience (see Ozuysal at least at [0002]-[0003]).
No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 23-24, 26-27, and 29. While some individual features of claims 23-24, 26-27, and 29 may be shown in the prior art of record: no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 23-24, 26-27, and 29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2020049442A1 (“Bowden”) discloses a digital currency unit has asset data indicative of an asset pool linked to the digital currency unit, and reserve currency data indicative of a reserve currency linked to the digital currency unit. The asset data and reserve currency data provide for transacting and/or valuing of the digital currency unit in a digital currency transacting system or platform.
US 20150262176 A1 (“Langschaedel”) discloses bitcoin can be sent to an email address. No miner's fee is paid by a host computer system. Hot wallet functionality is provided that transfers values of some Bitcoin addresses to a vault for purposes of security. A private key of a Bitcoin address of the vault is split and distributed to keep the vault secure. Instant exchange allows for merchants and customers to lock in a local currency price. A vault has multiple email addresses to authorize a transfer of bitcoin out of the vault. User can opt to have private keys stored in locations that are under their control. A tip button rewards content creators for their efforts. A bitcoin exchange allows for users to set prices that they are willing to sell or buy bitcoin and execute such trades.
US 20210398211 A1 (“Maathur”) discloses a method for cryptocurrency conversion includes: determining conversion information; sending the cryptocurrency to a settlement address; determining conversion orders; determining transaction completion; and executing the conversion orders.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Examiner, Art Unit 3694