DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on January 22, 2026 for application 18350453
Acknowledgements
Claims 5 and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the combination of references does not disclose “detect a new transaction in which a buyer makes a payment to a seller using the device as payment, enable the seller to verify value, validity, and ownership of the device when it is passed from the buyer to the seller during a physical meeting between the buyer and seller, and store, in memory included within the device, a new transaction hash that is based on the new transaction and each of the plurality of prior transactions in which the device was used for payment”
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103 and after a careful reconsideration of the prior art references, Examiner respectfully disagrees as Lee discloses a device with processing circuitry in paragraphs 0032-0033 in which a physical card is disclosed. Examiner believes that Fuka is sufficient to disclose “enable the seller to verify value and ownership of the device when it is passed from the buyer to the seller during a physical meeting between the buyer and seller” in paragraph 0040 where a user is taking her smart card, with embedded precious material, to a cashier service to exchange it for cash in which the cashier has scanned the integrated circuitry 110 of the user's smart card assembly 108 to obtain at cashier computer 104: (i) an identification (ID) code for smart card assembly 108; and (ii) a value corresponding to the amount of precious material is in the precious material portions 111 of smart card assembly 108 as sensed by sensors 112. The sensor data indicating the amount of precious material in smart card assembly is received and paragraph 0043 discloses card precious content value store 306 is checked to determine whether the amount of rhodium that is sensed to be in smart card assembly (that is, 0.5 grams) matches a value that was determined to be in smart card assembly 108 at the time of manufacture of smart card assembly 108 to determine that the amount value matches has not been subject to tampering and is genuine. Paragraph 0047 of Fuka further discloses “(i) reader queries smart card; (ii) smartcard queries sensor; (iii) smartcard determines that sensor data matches expected precious material content; (iv) smartcard providers reader with encrypted message that provides information on ID of smartcard, quantity of metal, and other possible parameters; (v) reader queries certifying authority to verify ID of smartcard; (vi) certifying authority (CA) responds with verification of smartcard ID and optionally metal quantity associated with smartcard; (vii) reader optionally queries smart card registry to verify ownership, and other information.” Lastly, Zamora Duran does in fact disclose “detecting a new transaction type” where in paragraph 0022 discloses a blockchain ledger is provided for transactions of the payment card owner, along with means to record transactions in blocks of the blockchain ledger, where new blocks are marked according to transaction type. Paragraph 0060 discloses an example where a card owner C uses a credit card in a transaction to purchase fruit in a physical supermarket which generates "X" as reference to a block in a blockchain ledger and when the card owner C goes home to conduct an online transaction, transaction processing system 110 generates "Y" as a reference to a new block in ledger depicted in Figure 1 of Zamora Duran.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0121749 A1) in view of Fuka et al. (US 2021/0349044 A1) and in view of Zamora Duran et al. (US 2019/0164160 A1) and in further view of HONG et al. (US 2023/0081262 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 20 Lee discloses a device comprising:
store information, within the device, about a transaction hash associated with the device, wherein the transaction hash is derived from each of a plurality of prior transactions in which the device was used for payment (¶0032 “is configured to maintain access information for digital bearer assets”, ¶0095, ¶0097, ¶0144, ¶0149, ¶0158, ¶0206, ¶0208)
enable comparison of the transaction hash to information about the device that is stored on a distributed ledger (¶0144, ¶0165, ¶0208)
Lee does not disclose: precious metal embedded within the device providing an intrinsic value for the device and making the device suitable as physical currency that can be used for payment in one or more transactions.
Fuka however discloses:
precious metal embedded within the device providing an intrinsic value for the device and making the device suitable as physical currency that can be used for payment in one or more transactions (¶0038, ¶0040, ¶0055-¶0057)
enable the seller to verify value, [validity], and ownership of the device when it is passed from the buyer to the seller during a physical meeting between the buyer and seller (¶0040, ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0047)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee to include precious metal embedded within the device providing an intrinsic value for the device and making the device suitable for use as physical currency as physical currency that can be used for payment in one or more transactions and enable the seller to verify value, validity, and ownership of the device when it is passed from the buyer to the seller during a physical meeting between the buyer and seller, as disclosed in Fuka, in order to provide a system for embedding small quantities of precious metals in cryptographic smart card to provide currency based on the verifiable quantities of the metal (see Fuka ¶0056).
The combination of Lee in view of Fuka does not disclose: detect a new transaction using the device, and store, in memory included within the device, a new transaction hash that is based on the new transaction and each of the plurality of prior transactions in which the device was used for payment.
Zamora Duran however discloses:
detect a new transaction using the device in which a buyer makes a payment to a seller using the device as payment, and (¶0022 “new transaction type”, ¶0030, ¶0060-¶0063)
store, in memory included within the device, a new transaction hash that is based on the new transaction and each of the plurality of prior transactions in which the device was used for payment (¶0028, ¶0040-¶0041, ¶0057)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee to include “detect a new transaction using the device, and store, in memory included within the device, a new transaction hash that is based on the new transaction and each of the plurality of prior transactions in which the device was used for payment”, as disclosed in Zamora Duran, in order to provide an authentication technique that certifies that the physical object that serves as
one of the authentication factors is truly the original physical object (see Zamora Duran ¶0005).
The combination of Lee in view of Fuka in view of Zamora Duran does not disclose: enable the seller to verify [validity] of the device.
HONG however discloses: enable the seller to verify [validity] of the device (¶0006, ¶0012-¶0014, ¶0019, ¶0047-¶0049)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee to include “enable the seller to verify [validity] of the device”, as disclosed in HONG, in order to develop a technique that can easily and accurately verify the authenticity and quality of precious metals in the distribution process (see HONG ¶0005).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Lee discloses wherein to enable comparison of the transaction hash to information about the device that is stored on the distributed ledger, the processing circuitry is further configured to: communicate the transaction hash to a consensus network that maintains the distributed ledger; and enable the consensus network to compare the transaction hash to the information about the device that is stored on the distributed ledger (¶0144, ¶0165, ¶0188, ¶0208)
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Lee discloses wherein to enable the consensus network to compare the transaction hash to the information about the device that is stored on the distributed ledger, the processing circuitry is further configured to: enable a smart contract executing on the consensus network to compare the transaction hash to the information about the device that is stored on the distributed ledger (¶0096, ¶0144, ¶0165, ¶0188, ¶0208).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Lee discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: enable the smart contract to determine that the transaction hash is consistent with the information about the device that is stored on the distributed ledger; and enable the smart contract to authorize a new transaction using the device (¶0096).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Lee discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: enable the smart contract to determine that the transaction hash is not consistent with the information about the device that is stored on the distributed ledger; and enable the smart contract to deny the new transaction (¶0048, ¶0188)
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, the combination of Lee, Fuka and Zamora Duran disclose the invention as above.
Fuka further discloses wherein the device has a form of a payment card (¶0038, ¶0040, ¶0055-¶0057)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee to include wherein the device has a form of a payment card, as disclosed in Fuka, in order to provide a system for embedding small quantities of precious metals in cryptographic smart card to provide currency based on the verifiable quantities of the metal (see Fuka ¶0056).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Fuka, Zamora Duran, HONG and in further view of Robertson et al. (US 2020/0294011 A1)
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, the combination of Lee, Fuka, Zamora Duran and HONG does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry comprises a system on a chip having a secure enclave, and wherein to store the information about the transaction hash, the processing circuitry is further configured to: store the information about the transaction hash in the secure enclave.
Robertson however discloses wherein the processing circuitry comprises a system on a chip having a secure enclave, and wherein to store the information about the transaction hash, the processing circuitry is further configured to: store the information about the transaction hash in the secure enclave (¶0038, ¶0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee to include wherein the precious metal is of a purity less than bullion-level purity, as disclosed in Berry, in order to provide a physical cryptocurrency system that directly supports the cryptographic methods employed by a given blockchain in order to store an associated digital asset (see Robertson ¶0011).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Fuka, Zamora Duran and HONG and in further view of Berry et al. (US 2014/0343726 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lee, Fuka, Zamora Duran and HONG does not disclose: wherein the precious metal is of a purity less than bullion-level purity.
Berry however discloses: wherein the precious metal is of a purity less than bullion-level purity (¶0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee to include wherein the precious metal is of a purity less than bullion-level purity, as disclosed in Berry, in order to provide precious metals that can be either in a form of bullion coin or a bullion coin embedded into a plastic card for the purpose of protection (see Berry abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Berry discloses wherein the precious metal embedded within the device has a weight exceeding a tenth of an ounce (¶0020).
Regarding Claim 11, Berry discloses wherein the precious metal embedded within the device has a weight exceeding a hundredth of an ounce (¶0020).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEUNG et al. (¶0029, ¶0030, ¶0050, ¶0090-¶0091, ¶0099)
Padmanabhan (US 2021/0182773 A1) (¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0024, ¶0032, ¶0033).
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 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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights