DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 06/30/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 07/01/2026, 08/03/2026, and 08/17/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 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 claims contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
6. Independent claims 1 and 11 contain the amended claim limitations of “reducing settlement latency and reducing network bandwidth consumption by consolidating transaction data that would otherwise require multiple separate data transmissions between the payment system and the clearing house server” that were not described in the specification.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for dependent from the rejected independent claims 1 and 11. Appropriate correction and clarification are requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
9. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., process) and claims 11-20 are directed to a system (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… receiving, …, a selection of a buyer account representing an alternative to a fiat currency or cryptocurrency for use in a transaction; receiving, …, a transaction request to transfer an amount from the buyer account to an origination account; in response to authorizing the transaction request based on at least the amount present in the buyer account, updating, … in real-time, … to represent a transfer of at least a portion of the amount to the origination account from the buyer account; in response to transferring the amount, automatically generating, …, a self-contained data packet containing the amount, an identification of the buyer account, an identification of the origination account, and a selection of a digital asset in the buyer account, the data packet comprising a header containing metadata indicating a source of payment and a destination of payment, and a data payload containing the amount, the identification of the buyer account, the identification of the origination account, and an identification of the digital asset, wherein the digital asset is preselected in the buyer account, wherein the digital asset is currency agnostic, wherein the digital asset is selected from a group of digital assets that do not include cryptocurrency, wherein the amount is limited to electronic transactions using a digital asset from the group of digital assets, and wherein the data packet is configured to enable … to complete the transfer of the amount without performing separate multi- packet lookups of account identity, asset type, or valuation, thereby reducing settlement latency and reducing network bandwidth consumption by consolidating transaction data that would otherwise require multiple separate data transmissions …; and routing, … in real time, the data packet to the clearing house server based on the digital asset, wherein the data packet instructs the clearing house server to execute a transfer order … of the digital asset from the buyer account to the origination seller account for the amount …, wherein … to initiate a transaction settled …, wherein … route the data packets, causing the transaction to be executed, in response to receiving an acceptance input …, wherein the amount is based on a digital asset amount relative to a base asset amount, thereby enabling communication … for conducting the electronic transaction … using the digital asset.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for conducting real time electronic transactions using a digital asset other than fiat currency or cryptocurrency). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a point of sale terminal”, “one or more processors”, “a payment system”, “a database”, “a clearing house server”, “a digital asset exchange platform”, “one or more servers of the digital asset exchange platform”, and “a defined communication architecture”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “a point of sale terminal”, “one or more processors”, “a payment system”, “a database”, “a clearing house server”, “a digital asset exchange platform”, “one or more servers of the digital asset exchange platform”, and “a defined communication architecture” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 11:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 11 recites the at least following limitations of “… receive, …, a selection of a buyer account representing an alternative to a fiat currency or cryptocurrency for use in a transaction; receive, …, a transaction request to transfer an amount from the buyer account to an origination account; in response to authorizing the transaction request based on at least the amount present in the buyer account, update, in real-time, … to represent a transfer of at least a portion of the amount to the origination account from the buyer account; in response to transferring the amount, automatically generating, …, a self-contained data packet containing the amount, an identification of the buyer account, an identification of the origination account, and a selection of a digital asset in the buyer account, the data packet comprising a header containing metadata indicating a source of payment and a destination of payment, and a data payload containing the amount, the identification of the buyer account, the identification of the origination account, and an identification of the digital asset, wherein the digital asset is preselected in the buyer account, wherein the digital asset is currency agnostic, wherein the digital asset is selected from a group of digital assets that do not include cryptocurrency, wherein the amount is limited to electronic transactions using a digital asset from the group of digital assets, and wherein the data packet is configured to enable … to complete the transfer of the amount without performing separate multi- packet lookups of account identity, asset type, or valuation, thereby reducing settlement latency and reducing network bandwidth consumption by consolidating transaction data that would otherwise require multiple separate data transmissions …; and route, in real time, the data packet … based on the digital asset, wherein the data packet instructs … a transfer order … the digital asset from the buyer account to the origination seller account for the amount upon a close of the digital asset exchange, wherein … initiate a transaction settled …, wherein … route the data packets, causing the transaction to be executed, in response to receiving an acceptance input …, wherein the amount is based on a digital asset amount relative to a base asset amount, thereby enabling communication … for conducting the electronic transaction … using the digital asset.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for conducting real time electronic transactions using a digital asset other than fiat currency or cryptocurrency). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 11 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a point of sale terminal”, “a database”, “a clearing house server”, “a digital asset exchange platform”, “one or more servers of the digital asset exchange platform”, and “a defined communication architecture”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a point of sale terminal”, “a database”, “a clearing house server”, “a digital asset exchange platform”, “one or more servers of the digital asset exchange platform”, and “a defined communication architecture” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2 and 12: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising transmitting an instruction in response to an indication that a market for the first digital asset is closed), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1 and 11. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 3 and 13: simply provide further definition to “the base asset” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein the base asset corresponds to at least one of a price of gold, fiat currency, or cryptocurrency do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4 and 14: simply provide further definition to “the data packet” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein the data packet comprises a number of shares of the digital asset to be transferred do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5 and 15: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: in response to receiving the selection from the point of sale terminal, querying, by the one or more processors, a third-party server to receive at least one of the amount owned for each digital asset, a current fiat value of at least one digital asset, or a base asset value), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1 and 11. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the point of sale terminal, the one or more processors, a third-party server amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the point of sale terminal, the one or more processors, a third-party server) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 6 and 16: simply provide further definition to “the digital asset” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein the digital asset is held in the buyer account and the origination account do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7 and 17: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, the at least the portion of an intermediary value based on the transfer amount and current fiat value in relation to a base asset value), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1 and 11. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the one or more processors amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the one or more processors) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 8 and 18: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: upon receiving a second request in association with the origination account, transferring, by the one or more processors, a second digital asset having a value corresponding to the digital asset within the origination account), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1 and 11. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the one or more processors amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the one or more processors) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 9 and 19: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: updating, by the one or more processors, a user interface of the point of sale terminal to indicate that the value is deducted from the second digital asset and is added to the digital asset, within the buyer account), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1 and 11. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the one or more processors, the user interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the one or more processors, the user interface) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 10 and 20: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: updating, by the one or more processors, a user interface of the point of sale terminal to indicate the at least the portion of the intermediary value deducted from the digital asset within the buyer account), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1 and 11. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the one or more processors, the user interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the one or more processors, the user interface) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
10. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument, Step 2A, Prong I: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants respectfully submit that the claims are directed toward performing real-time point-of-sale (POS) activity using preselected digital assets that are neither fiat currency nor cryptocurrency. The pending claims are not directed to a fundamental economic practice or organizing human activity. Instead, they are directed to a specific, computer-implemented process for enabling real-time communication between a POS terminal and a digital asset exchange platform, through an optimized, self- contained data packet with a defined header and payload architecture … The recited data packet comprises a header containing metadata indicating a source of payment and a destination of payment, and a data payload containing the transaction amount, account identifications, and digital asset identification. This self-contained packet is configured to enable a clearing house server to complete the transfer without performing separate multi-packet lookups of account identity, asset type, or valuation, thereby reducing settlement latency and reducing network bandwidth consumption by consolidating transaction data that would otherwise require multiple separate data transmissions … Additionally, the processors route the data packet only in response to receiving an acceptance input from the point of sale terminal, tying execution to a specific physical interaction at the terminal. This computing arrangement is not a generic "funds transfer" or "sales transaction" implemented on a computer; rather, it solves specific technological problems that exist with prior asset-based settlement systems (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 1 and 11 as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for conducting real time electronic transactions using a digital asset other than fiat currency or cryptocurrency). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument, Step 2A, Prong II: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants respectfully submit that the claims are patent eligible because they are directed toward concrete, computer-implemented methods and systems that improve how digital asset transactions are processed, valued, routed, and settled in the context of non-crypto, non-fiat assets. These steps reflect a specific practical application that meaningfully integrates the claimed elements into a technological process, providing technical benefits in security, speed, interoperability, and operational stability that are tied directly to the features of the system described in the Specification … the Specification further describes that the claimed concepts constitute a technical solution to a technical problem in the field of electronic transaction processing, namely, the lack of a mechanism to integrate non-fiat, non-crypto asset holdings into real-time POS authorization flows while still enabling accurate, compliant settlement in a regulated clearing environment. The technical solution captured by the claims improves the functioning of those systems by eliminating the need for fiat/crypto conversion, reducing settlement latency, and ensuring cross-asset fungibility and interoperability. These improvements are implemented through a concrete data flow and system integration recited in the claims, rather than by invoking an economic concept at a high level of generality. a. The Specification describes that conventional crypto-based activity are slow and inefficient. The Specification explains that conventional electronic payment systems relying on fiat currency or cryptocurrency face numerous technical challenges when used for real-time transactions and settlement … b. The claims provide a technical solution to the technical problem discussed in the Specification. The claims address the above-identified technical problems of conventional fiat- and cryptocurrency-based settlement systems by implementing a specific, computer-implemented transaction architecture that eliminates reliance on those media and processes … c. The latest Patent Office Guidance clarifies that the claims are patent eligible because the application/claims provide technical improvements. The August 4, 2025, USPTO memorandum explains that qualifying improvements for subject matter eligibility purposes may take many forms, such as faster or more secure computer operation, reduced processor or bandwidth consumption, a new or better data structure, or enhanced performance of another technical system such as a network, sensor, or payment … d. The Examiner's response does not include why the above-identified technical improvements do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In the prior response, the Applicant explained in detail how the pending claims recite concrete, computer-implemented methods and systems that provide identified technical improvements over conventional electronic transaction processing, as supported by the Specification. These features were shown to improve the functioning of the transaction system itself, such as increasing speed, interoperability, stability, and compliance, and therefore integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO's 2019 Revised Guidance. In the spirit of expedited prosecution, the Applicant has amended the claims to highlight these technical improvements further herewith … e. The claims recite a novel and unconventional arrangement of computing devices to achieve the technical improvements discussed herein. The claims are patent eligible because they recite a novel and unconventional arrangement of computing devices (e.g., a POS terminal, a payment system processor, a clearing house server, and one or more digital asset exchange platform servers) that together achieve the technical improvements discussed herein. The claims provide a specific communication architecture that enables these computing infrastructures, which historically operated in entirely separate domains, to interoperate in real time in order to complete an electronic transaction at a POS terminal using a currency-agnostic non-crypto digital asset … Unlike conventional approaches, a POS terminal is configured to communicate with a digital asset exchange, for example, such that a stock may be a component of a real-time transaction at that POS terminal. The result is a concrete, practical application of computing technology that provides faster electronic transactions and stable valuations, among other technical improvements discussed herein. For the aforementioned reasons, the claims overcome this rejection. Therefore, the Applicant requests that this rejection be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-7).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 1 and 11 further to the abstract idea include additional elements of “a point of sale terminal”, “one or more processors”, “a payment system”, “a database”, “a clearing house server”, “a digital asset exchange platform”, “one or more servers of the digital asset exchange platform”, and “a defined communication architecture”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner also respectfully submits using a computer to perform tasks more quickly or efficiently does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise ineligible abstract idea. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-20 in the section above.
11. 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended 1-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billington et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0273521), hereinafter, “Billington”, in view of Whitt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0298064), hereinafter, “Whitt”, have been considered and they are persuasive (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 6-7).
Examiner notes that the amended limitations “in response to transferring the amount, automatically generating, by the one or more processors, a self-contained data packet containing the amount, an identification of the buyer account, an identification of the origination account, and a selection of a digital asset in the buyer account, the data packet comprising a header containing metadata indicating a source of payment and a destination of payment, and a data payload containing the amount, the identification of the buyer account, the identification of the origination account, and an identification of the digital asset, wherein the digital asset is preselected in the buyer account, wherein the digital asset is currency agnostic, wherein the digital asset is selected from a group of digital assets that do not include cryptocurrency, wherein the amount is limited to electronic transactions using a digital asset from the group of digital assets, and wherein the data packet is configured to enable a clearing house server to complete the transfer of the amount without performing separate multi- packet lookups of account identity, asset type, or valuation, thereby reducing settlement latency and reducing network bandwidth consumption by consolidating transaction data that would otherwise require multiple separate data transmissions between the payment system and the clearing house server; and routing, by the one or more processors in real time, the data packet to the clearing house server based on the digital asset, wherein the data packet instructs the clearing house server to execute a transfer order on a digital asset exchange platform of the digital asset from the buyer account to the origination seller account for the amount upon a close of the digital asset exchange platform, wherein the point of sale terminal, the payment system, and the clearing house server are configured to interoperate through a defined communication architecture that enables the point of sale terminal to initiate a transaction settled on the digital asset exchange platform without requiring the point of sale terminal to communicate directly with the digital asset exchange platform or the clearing house server, wherein the one or more processors route the data packets, causing the transaction to be executed, in response to receiving an acceptance input from the point of sale terminal” of amended independent claims 1 and 11 are deemed not to be found in the prior art and updated search. Therefore, the Examiner hereby withdraws the 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections of independent claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20.
Relevant Prior Art
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mendhi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0042998) teach system and method for autonomous sustenance of digital assets.
Grassadonia et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0034888) teach cryptocurrency payment network.
Petersen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0188811) teach efficient, accurate, and secure processing of conversions between digital assets.
Conclusion
13. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights